Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Economic and Monetary Union

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England on the employment consequences of EMU; and if he will make a statement. [87056]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Governor and I talk regularly about economic issues. As a result of the Government's October 1997 statement on their position on EMU, the Governor and I also sit on the standing committee on euro preparations. There is also a parliamentary committee on EMU preparations, which all parties have been asked to join. Our decisions on EMU will be made in the national economic interest.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In February, the Prime Minister told us to prepare to join the euro. This, week the right hon. Gentleman told us that the economic conditions are not right; the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that the economic conditions are not right; and the Governor of the Bank of England, in published evidence, told us that the conditions may never be right. Why should British business have to spend billions of pounds preparing for the euro when the Prime Minister is not prepared even to promote it?

Mr. Brown: It is British business that is saying that the decision on EMU should be made in the national economic interest. It is the Conservative party that is saying that, such is its ideological objection to EMU, that, even if the national economic interest suggested joining, it would not join. If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at the views that have been expressed by business men within and outside the CBI, he will see that they make it absolutely clear that they have no support for the Conservative position on EMU.
As for who is best at advancing the national economic interest, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look back on the letter that he wrote to The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday in which he made clear his views on EMU, but also, interestingly, commented on the economy. Did he say that there was a recession, or that there was stagnation?

No. His words were words of congratulation. He talked about this year's "resurgence of the economy." At every Question Time between now and the general election, we shall remind him of his congratulations to the Government.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Independent economic estimates have suggested that a successful single currency could add 0.5 per cent. to Britain's GNP, significantly boosting employment prospects. If that is the case, and if the criteria for entry are met, does the Chancellor agree that it is essential that that issue is put to the people in a referendum, and that it would be wholly wrong, simply in the interests of one political party, to refuse to put that question to the people for an arbitrary period of 10 years?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who points out a fundamental flaw in the Opposition's policy. Some Opposition Members say that they would not join a single currency for 10 years; others say—I think that the shadow Chancellor is one of them—that they would never join. I welcome two new Members to the Opposition Front Bench. One, I understand, is totally against the single currency; the other is totally for the single currency.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor agree with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England that the excessive strength of sterling against the euro is now causing a risk of deflation and of our falling far too far below the inflation target, and that it may need to be corrected? Does he further agree that the lasting misalignment of sterling with the euro and the currencies that preceded it is now giving us the worst trade deficit with our European markets that we have had for eight years, causing great damage to our manufacturing and exporting industries? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the MPC to continue to incline towards reducing interest rates in order to bring floating sterling back to a more sensible relationship with the euro?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the economic debate on the Conservative Benches is being entered into on the matter of economics, not simply politics. I welcome the former Chancellor to our proceedings, although he will again be surprised to see the strength with which Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are against the position that he holds on EMU. I hope that he, too, will come to the view that it is a good thing that we made the Bank of England independent, and I hope that he will try to persuade his colleagues that the Conservative Front-Bench position of being completely against the independence of the Bank of England threatens a return to stop-go in the economy. The strength with which the Conservatives have opposed the independence of the Bank of England makes it almost impossible for them, with any integrity, to change their position between now and the general election. With regard to the exchange rate, as the former Chancellor will know, 80 per cent. of the rise in the exchange rate took place under him.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Given the resurgence of our economy about which we have already heard—and, therefore, the strength of sterling versus the euro—will my right hon. Friend support Chancellor


Gerhard Schröder in his changes in tax and expenditure to make the German economy more competitive in order to encourage exports into Germany and to boost the strength of the euro, so that, alongside the resurgence in demand from the far east and more trade to the United States, we see balanced growth across Europe?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the importance of the rest of Europe: 50 per cent. of our trade is with the rest of Europe, and 3 million jobs depend on it. A Conservative party that would threaten to detach us from Europe would put at risk British industry, British manufacturing and British jobs.
On the agenda for reform in Europe, my hon. Friend will know well that it is the British Government who are pushing not just for the reform of labour markets and employment policy, with our employment action plans, but for the reform of capital markets and product markets to make the single market work more effectively for British business and British jobs.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that there is a real threat to British jobs from the current high exchange rate, high real interest rates and uncertainty over the Government's intention on the single currency, borne out by the comments of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—made, interestingly enough, abroad rather than in this country? Is it not time that the Government, led by the Prime Minister, made a clear declaration of intent to join the single currency and set out a timetable of measures to achieve convergence and to secure the winning of a referendum?

Mr. Brown: There are two positions in this debate that we do not support—the first is to rule out joining the single currency whether it is in the national economic interest or not, and the other is to join the single currency now, even when it is clear that, at this stage, the convergence tests have not been met. I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of the six candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, but he does not need to make outrageous statements to put forward his case.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee on euro preparations—which my right hon. Friend established under my chairmanship—met this morning, and that, yet again, we had an empty chair not filled by any member from the Conservative party? If the Conservatives are serious about scrutiny—as is suggested by the original question from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)—would it not be a good idea for them to become members of that committee, so that they could help us to scrutinise properly?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose chairmanship of the committee is much valued, and I am grateful that all other parties have joined the committee. I suspect that the reason why the Conservative party cannot join the Committee is that it cannot decide whether to put on it the Front-Bench spokesman who supports the single currency or the Front-Bench spokesman who opposes the single currency.

Mr. Francis Maude: In the light of the confusion that is being sown deliberately, will the

Chancellor today confirm that the Government's policy remains the same, and that the Government are, in his own words,
committed in principle to economic and monetary union"?
Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that it would be "extraordinary" if a Labour Government were not to hold a referendum on this issue with a view to scrapping the pound soon after the next election?

Mr. Brown: The confusion is on the Conservative Front Bench, where there is someone supporting the single currency and someone opposing it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are getting very upset about this. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), one of those trying to make sedentary interventions, says about the policy of opting out of joining a single currency:
It would be completely crazy and contrary to the national interest to throw away our option to join the single currency.
Not only is the Conservative party divided between the Back Benches and the Front Benches, it is divided within the Treasury team. The Government's position is the October 1997 statement—that is what we are pursuing.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the Chancellor for highlighting the sense of our policy. The Government have continued to refuse to abandon the national changeover plan, despite nobody having voted for it. It is a bit like starting to build a house without applying for planning permission. Given that the Chancellor is committing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—and that he is asking businesses to commit hundreds of millions of pounds of their money—to a decision that even the Prime Minister admits hardly anyone supports, will the Chancellor be on the platform on 9 July with the other leaders of the scrap the pound campaign at its 15th relaunch? Or is he, like the Prime Minister, so gutless that he expects others to do his dirty work for him? Why can he not summon up the courage to stand up for what he believes in?

Mr. Brown: First, there is no organisation called "the scrap the pound campaign". Secondly, the position on the single currency is unchanged. As for trying to push through the national changeover plan, and costs within it, without parliamentary discussion, it was discussed last week in the Committee considering the Finance Bill and it will be discussed on the Floor of the House. Any expenditures will be with parliamentary approval, so the right hon. Gentleman had that completely wrong.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the drawing board, and has a meeting of his Treasury team, He should ask the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford whether he still agrees with this statement:
Taking irrevocable decisions before you have to and before the essential facts are available is bizarre and indefensible.
Tory Front Benchers believe not only that their policy is
crazy and contrary to the national interest
but that it is "bizarre and indefensible". I hope that they will do some preparations before the next Treasury Question Time.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Is it not important to listen to the views of business on employment? ICI, which employs more than 4,000 people in my constituency, has clear views on the euro and the single currency.
Speaking of the bizarre, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) suggested in the Finance Bill Committee that there was a similar argument for retaining the euro option as for retaining the nuclear deterrent. Is that not bizarre?

Mr. Brown: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said:
Even if we change the Maastricht treaty and disengage in the next Parliament, it will be possible for a Government in 50 or 100 years to renegotiate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1999; c. 674.]
The Conservatives' position is becoming more difficult to understand by the minute. I take it that their extremism is now such that they would not join a single currency even if it were in the national economic interest; they would oppose making preparations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, even though the CBI, the British Bankers' Association and British Chambers of Commerce are all sitting on our preparations committee, along with every political party other than the Conservative party; they would opt out of European legislation; and they would renegotiate the treaties of membership. That is a manifesto not for leaving Europe or the euro but for leaving their senses.

Tax Revenues

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What estimate he has made of the change in tax revenues in 1999–2000 as a result of the Budgets since July 1997. [87057]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): Costings of the measures in the July 1997, March 1998 and March 1999 Budgets can be found in tables 2.2, 1.3 and 1.3 respectively of the appropriate "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

Mr. Fabricant: I am not sure that I will thank the Minister for that answer. Do the tables agree with an impeccable source which says that the increase in taxes this year as a result of the Budgets has been £7.1 billion; that it will be £10.5 billion next year; £9.3 billion the year after; and £40.7 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, is he aware that he is disagreeing with the economics and statistics section of the House of Commons Library?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, just as he is wrong about most things. If he wants to trade facts, let me tell him that, this year, the tax burden is lower than it was last year; and that, next year and the year after, it will also be lower than it was last year. Another fact is that, if the Conservative party had remained in power, in accordance with the Budget that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) set in 1996, in each of those years, the tax burden would have been higher.
The Conservatives have not learned any of the lessons of the general election, when they lost the trust of the British people on tax. Even now, they are planning to increase the taxes of the poorest families in the land. If they had their way and abolished the working families tax credit, 1.5 million of the poorest families would face an extra £24 a week on their tax bills. What clearer contrast

could there be between today's Conservative party, committed to penalising the poorest families, and today's Labour Government, committed to helping them?

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the effect that Conservative amendments to the Finance Bill would have on Government revenues? The cumulative total of what they have proposed so far is more than the extra £40 billion that the Government have allocated for schools and hospitals. Is it not irresponsible for the Conservatives to say that they would match our commitment of £40 billion for schools and hospitals yet to fail completely to say where the money is to come from?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. He keeps a wary eye on the pledges that the Conservatives make. They think that they can get away with it in the Finance Bill Committee, but they cannot. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives' figures do not add up. The shadow Chancellor says that he wants to match our record increases for health and education but fails to will the means to do so. The amendments that the Conservatives have tabled in the Finance Bill Committee would mean £40 billion less for health and education. Now it is clear: the dividing line is between the Conservative party, committed to £40 billion less for hospitals and schools, and the Labour party, committed to £40 billion more.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: As the Chief Secretary was so notably unwilling to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and for the information of those of us who are new to the Front Bench, will he relieve a genuine perplexity on our part about the Labour Government in the light of the Prime Minister's self-proclaimed 100 per cent. rock-solid attachment to new Labour? What is new about a Labour Government raising taxes? Does the novelty perhaps consist in the fact that, instead of announcing it, they pretend that it is not happening?

Mr. Milburn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench; I suspect that we will have some fun with the new Conservative Front Benchers. Everybody in the country, apart, apparently, from them, knows that taxes are falling. We have introduced the new 10p starting rate; cuts in the basic rate of income tax; cuts in national insurance contributions which even now are benefiting 20 million people; and increases in family income through the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. Those measures were all opposed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is not one of the major problems of tax revenue caused by those gentlemen who so arrange their affairs as to avoid paying taxes due in this country? Will my right hon. Friend agree to commission the Inland Revenue to investigate Mr. Michael Ashcroft's tax arrangements? It cannot be right that a man who funds the Conservative party so arranges his affairs as to avoid paying tax and then uses the money that he saves to pay for the isolationist policies of the new anti-European Tories. It is wrong that the party of artful dodgers is paid for by a tax dodger.

Mr. Milburn: It would be wrong to comment on the tax affairs of any individual British citizen, but I suspect


that my hon. Friend's question is more tailored to Conservative Front Benchers, so perhaps they would be prepared to answer it. The one form of monopoly that they appear to support is the monopoly provision for the financing of the Conservative party.

Road Fuel Duty

Mr. Christopher Chope: What was the level of road fuel duty per litre of diesel in 1998–99 in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Ireland and (c) other countries of continental Europe. [87058]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The rate of duty on ultra-low-sulphur diesel in this country is 47.21p per litre, and on standard diesel the rate is 50.21p per litre. In other countries of continental Europe, the rates range from about 18p per litre in Luxembourg and Greece to 28p per litre in Italy. In the Republic of Ireland, the rate is 23.47p per litre.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that factual reply. What message does she draw from those facts? Surely the message is that our road haulage industry and all those who use diesel are being priced out of business by the uncompetitive tax burden imposed on them by the Government. What message does she have for people such as Mr. and Mrs. Martin, who run Dorset Heavy Haulage and have written to me to say that they are threatened with being put out of business by the Government's tax policy on diesel? Will she accept that one of the verdicts to be drawn from the recent European elections, in which five times as many people voted Conservative in my constituency as voted Labour, is that the Government have got their policy on the taxation of diesel totally wrong?

Ms Hewitt: My message to the hon. Gentleman is that, in the Budget, we froze the rates of vehicle excise duty for most lorries; we doubled the reduction in VED for the cleaner lorries; and we cut the duty on ultra-low-sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel so that that differential is now the widest in the European Union, with the beneficial result that very soon all diesel bought in this country will be cleaner diesel. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the road fuel duty escalator—in the days when they believed in doing something about environmental pollution. They have now become such an extreme party that they have abandoned that policy and their commitment to improving air quality.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is right to say that it is unrealistic to look at only one element of road hauliers' overheads. However, will she continue to keep a close eye on the effect of environmental taxes? I know that the Conservative Government introduced those measures, but I still have the strange, old-fashioned idea that the Conservatives often do things wrong. Might it not occasionally be helpful if we did not pick up the debris that they left behind?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, to assess the position of the British road haulage industry,

we must look at total business costs, not just one element. For a typical road haulage firm, business costs could be nearly £600,000 a year higher in the Netherlands than in Britain. In Belgium, they would be nearly £820,000 a year higher than here.
We continue to keep under review the impact of all taxation, including environmental taxes. In line with our statement of intent on environmental taxation, we pay special attention to the impact on income distribution and on international competitiveness. With my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, we are having very useful discussions with the road haulage industry through the road haulage industry forum that we have established.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Government remain committed to increasing levels of duty on diesel, thus making it difficult for hauliers to run their fleets on that fuel. They have also introduced some commendable incentives for the use of compressed natural gas and other alternative fuels. However, does the Economic Secretary agree that one of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to spend huge sums of money to convert to the use of compressed natural gas is that they are not confident that the fiscal incentives will remain in the long term?
Will she guarantee that those fiscal benefits will remain in the long term and that the Government will continue to cut costs for using compressed natural gas, just as they are increasing them over time for diesel?

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the measure in the Budget cutting the duty on road fuel gases by 29 per cent. Of course we shall continue to ensure that fuel duties, and road transport taxation in general, contribute to our goal of achieving cuts in CO2 emissions, improving local air quality and thereby people's health.

Third-world Debt

Ms Julia Drown: What agreement was reached at the recent G8 Finance Ministers' meeting with regard to reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [87059]

Ann Clwyd: What progress was made on debt relief at the Cologne G8 summit. [87066]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Two weeks ago, at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Frankfurt, we took forward proposals for faster, deeper and wider debt relief. Agreement was then reached a week ago at the G8 Summit in Cologne on an initiative that will reduce the debt owed by the poorest countries by up to $100 billion. Under the proposals, two thirds of official debt of the poorest countries can be written off.
I want to applaud the work of the Churches and non-governmental organisations in helping ensure that outcome.

Ms Drown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The Government deserve much congratulation for their work in securing further and faster debt relief. I was also pleased that the Prime Minister told the House on


Monday that he wanted further progress on debt relief to be made. That is needed because, even after Cologne, Tanzania will still be expected to pay $5 per person per year. That is much more than the health budget in that country, which still needs to spend much more money on basic health care to save lives.
Will my right hon. Friend say what further steps can be taken to make further progress on debt relief, and will he assure the House and the public that the relief achieved at Cologne will not be funded out of our already overstretched aid budget?

Mr. Brown: I can reassure my hon. Friend on her final point. What was agreed at Cologne was that 38 countries will be able to benefit from the debt relief—many more than were in the scheme beforehand—and that debt relief can be made possible by the end of 2000. There are three things that we must do between now and October, which is when the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank meetings will finally confirm many of the proposals.
First—my hon. Friend's point about Tanzania applies to other countries as well—we want to ensure the front-loading of debt relief. That means that debt relief will be available immediately, and debt interest payments can be reduced. Secondly, we want the World Bank's millennium trust fund, which has received $100 million from the British Government and $171 million in total, to gain funds from other countries. We want to encourage other countries to contribute to the fund, and also private companies that are involved throughout the world.
Finally, and most important for the long term, we want debt relief to be linked to poverty relief in the most immediate way. We want to create a virtuous circle of debt reduction, poverty reduction and economic development. That is the hope for the countries about which we are talking.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend has always described debt relief as a great moral issue, and has pursued it with great vigour. He has been among the leaders on the matter in the G7 countries. The package brings important relief to eligible countries, but they must still pay more in debt servicing than they can spend on health and education. What progress is my right hon. Friend likely to make with the IMF and the World Bank? In conversations with representatives of those international institutions, the International Development Committee has found continued rigidity and lack of flexibility in their attitudes to some of the poorest countries, such as Rwanda, which, in addition to recovering from genocide, is trying to service its debt.

Mr. Brown: I thank the International Development Committee for all its work on debt relief. Post-conflict proposals exist to help countries such as Rwanda to come more quickly into the debt reduction process, just as there are policies for post-catastrophe countries, such as Honduras and Nicaragua. My hon. Friend should not underestimate what is being done. Subject to the terms of the agreement, two thirds of the official debt of the poorest countries will be written off. That includes £20 billion in Overseas Development Administration loans, $30 billion from the previous package—for which my predecessor as Chancellor should be congratulated on leading the way several years ago—and £50 billion, or $70 billion, as a result of the negotiations.
The package makes a major change because we want debt relief in 2000, the millennium year. The work of the Churches and the 120,000 people who sent cards to the Treasury over the past few weeks have succeeded in keeping debt relief alive in many countries around the world. From talking to fellow Finance Ministers, I know that that has had a substantial impact on public opinion. At the World Bank meetings in October and in IMF meetings, we will be determined that the link between debt relief and poverty relief should be recognised. My hon. Friend should recall that IMF gold sales will be approved for the first time, and the millennium trust fund will be set up.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I ask the Chancellor why the Government's proposals for reducing the debt burden on the poorest countries include having the IMF sell about 310 tonnes of its gold holdings? Is the Chancellor aware that, in Washington on Monday, Mr. James Motlatsi, president of the National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa—which has more than 200,000 members—told many leading United States Congressmen that, if the downward pressure on the gold price were maintained, at least 80,000 of his members would become unemployed? That would be the effect on South Africa alone, but 30 of the 41 poorest countries that we are trying to help are gold exporters, and, on average, each gold miner supports 10 people.

Mr. Brown: The sale of gold is only one among the issues surrounding debt relief. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to welcome the general package of debt reduction.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Answer the question.

Mr. Brown: I am coming to it, but I should have thought that someone on the Conservative Benches would wish to welcome the debt reduction proposals.
Every country in the G7 is supporting the IMF gold sales. They are now agreed as an international policy and other countries on the IMF interim committee will endorse it. The income from gold sales enables the IMF to do far more than it would otherwise be able to do to secure debt reduction. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman is not concerned about the question at all: it is about debt reduction.

Mr. Edward Davey: Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly congratulate the Chancellor on the work that he has done to achieve the debt relief package. I wish him well in the work that he has pledged to undertake to make further progress. We all hope that he succeeds. Will he take this opportunity to confirm to the House that the United Kingdom contribution to debt relief will be additional to the Department for International Development budget in the period of both this comprehensive spending review and future ones? When will the G7 countries become more specific about their precise contributions to debt relief?

Mr. Brown: On the first point, yes. On the second point, we expect announcements from the countries that are members of the G7 soon about the contributions that they will make to the millennium trust fund. There is also


a proposal for the European development fund, which is made up of contributions from member states, but outside the EU budget, and which has substantial surpluses, to make a one-off contribution to the World Bank to enable it to reduce debt or make a one-off contribution to the countries with debts. I hope that that proposal will command support throughout the House.

Working Families Tax Credit

Helen Jones: What estimate he has made of the number of people in Warrington, North who will benefit from the working families tax credit. [87060]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I regret that estimates for the Warrington, North constituency are not available at this stage, but 200,000 families in Merseyside and the north-west will be helped by the working families tax credit in its first year of operation. In total, 1.5 million families in our country will benefit.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Many people in my constituency welcome the lifeline that will be offered them by the working families tax credit and the encouragement to people in work and others to take low-paid jobs. Can my right hon. Friend tell me and them what the effect on those families would be if the Opposition were ever in a position to carry out their threat to get rid of the working families tax credit and force people back into reliance on benefit, which will affect them not only in the immediate term but in terms of their long-term prospects of progressing through work?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that 1.5 million families will benefit. Three million children in total will benefit. The average gain to the individual family is £24 a week. Some families will be £50 a week better off as a result of the combined measures for child support that we are introducing. More than 850,000 children and 1.5 million families will be lifted out of poverty. That is a major change from the situation that we inherited. For more than 20 years, child poverty had risen to the point where 40 per cent. of children were born into low-income households. I should have thought that that would be a dividing line between us and the Conservatives at the next election, as my hon. Friend says.
The former social security spokesman for the Conservatives said:
We would cut the working families tax credit".
The leader of the Conservative party says:
It is a tangible difference between the parties.
Of course the shadow Chancellor, not to be outdone, says that the welfare spending involved
is economic and social lunacy.
What to him is economic and social lunacy to us is elementary justice.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask the Chancellor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seventy-seven."] Actually, two and a half times the Labour side since a week last Thursday. How much does the Chancellor rely on statistics in this matter? I ask that question seriously,

because the Government suggested that some 2 million people would be affected by the minimum wage and would get a pay rise in April this year. The statistics provided by the Government statistical service show that wage rises in April this year were at a rate lower than that in April of the previous year. Why do the statistics seem to be at odds with what the Labour party is saying about low pay and family tax credit?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, but before he asks the question again, perhaps he will deal with this simple point: why, when he talks about the minimum wage, can he not say that the Conservative party supports it? Why does it continue to oppose it and every measure that we have introduced to relieve child poverty? The party's extremism is such that it is against the new deal, against the working families tax credit, against the child benefit increase and against the minimum wage.

Taxpayers (Conscience)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What policy is adopted by his Department in respect of taxpayers who do not wish to pay certain elements of taxation on grounds of conscience. [87061]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): There are no special arrangements for taxpayers to withhold tax on grounds of conscience.

Mr. Corbyn: Could the Minister consider whether it would be right to introduce such a measure? The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.
British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war.

Mr. Milburn: We will deal with the costs of reconstruction in Kosovo in due course. Although I understand my hon. Friend's deeply held convictions on the issue—his view is shared by others in this House and elsewhere—the Government have a duty and obligation to make proper provision for our country's defences. That is precisely what we are committed to doing. I say in all candour that his proposal would undermine our ability to do that, and that is why the Government will not contemplate it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the element of our taxes that taxpayers least like paying the net contribution to the European Union, over which they have no democratic control and which goes to such causes as the subsidy for tobacco growing and the misapplication of funds, waste and fraud?

Mr. Milburn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for two reasons: first, on the most imaginative bid for a place


on the Front Bench so far, and secondly, for acting as a continual reminder to us that the Conservative party has been become a genuine one-issue party.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As my hon. Friend said that he would come to a question on Kosovo in due course, would he care to take the opportunity of answering Question 29?

Madam Speaker: But not yet!

Business Taxation

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the level of business taxation. [87063]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government keep the level of business taxation under constant review.

Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's woefully inadequate reply. Can she tell the House whether it was through amnesia caused by stress that she failed to mention the proposed climate tax, the company car tax, the fuel tax, the vehicle excise tax, the windfall tax, the abolition of the tax credit on dividends and the huge hike in national insurance contributions under this Government? What about the crucial fact, emphasised by Sir Clive Thompson, the president of the Confederation of British Industry, that the cumulative effect of this Government's imposts will be to raise business taxes by £20 billion in the lifetime of this Parliament? Does she recognise that, if the Government continue at their present rate of confiscation, they will soon make Dick Turpin look like a charitable donor?

Mrs. Roche: I make some allowances for the hon. Gentleman because his mind is obviously distracted now that he has been elevated to yet another Front-Bench team. He does seem to be suffering; he has forgotten that the Labour Government have cut the main rate of corporation tax. We now have the best possible regime for businesses in this country—the small firms rate of corporation tax and the Small Business Service. I also remind him that, under the previous Tory Government, a business went bust every three minutes. That is why we have been able to get employment figures up; that is why we have been able to work with businesses in the way that we have. It struck me as somewhat odd that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that, in his very own constituency, there has been a drop in unemployment of 32 per cent. That came about because of our management of the economy.

Ms Joan Ryan: Those in businesses in my constituency and across north London generally tell me and their representative groups, such as the North London chamber of commerce and the North London manufacturing action group—of which my hon. Friend will be aware through her own constituency work—that they are very happy with the positive approach that the Government have taken on business taxation and on other policies to support business, in order to help business to grow and hence to create jobs. Will my hon. Friend comment on what I have been told recently by business people? The main problem—as they see it—is the way

the Opposition continually talk down our economy and undermine the efforts made by our businesses and their success.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right. I know from my own experience—because my hon. Friend and I have the great privilege of representing constituencies in north London—the extensive contact that she maintains with the businesses in her constituency. The greatest threat to business in our country is the way in which the Opposition woefully ignore the business organisations in our constituencies and talk them down. The Opposition talk down our economy; they are clearly not acting in the national interest.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Following consultations that took place week between the Inland Revenue and representatives of hundreds of thousands of service workers in information technology, offshore oil and other knowledge-intensive industries, is the Financial Secretary aware of the considerable dissatisfaction in those industries, and of the fact that the Revenue simply does not understand how those flexible, freelance industries operate? Will she agree to issue a consultative paper, setting out in detail how the regulations will apply, so that the Government's legitimate concern to stop tax avoidance does not drive those crucial industries off shore or destroy them?

Mrs. Roche: I notice that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the legitimate concerns of Government. That is why my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is consulting so widely; that is why we shall listen to the representations that businesses make. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is most important that there be a level playing field, and that the people who are legitimately required to pay tax pay it. Of course, there is no question on our part of trying to get at legitimate businesses. We are trying to achieve a balance in this matter and that is what we shall do.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What progress has been made in deciding the details of the proposed climate change levy. [87064]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are working closely with business on the detailed design and implementation of the climate change levy, which will make a significant contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business, as the revenues will be fully recycled; and, following the recommendations of Lord Marshall, we recognise the special position of the energy-intensive industries, given their high energy usage and their exposure to international competition. We intend to set significantly lower rates of the levy for energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. Detailed negotiations are now under way with the sectors concerned.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. While everyone accepts the main objective of environmental improvement, does she recognise that the


manufacturing industries that are high-energy users have genuine fears that we may drive them and their investment out of the country, resulting in a loss of jobs and an adverse effect on our balance of payments? That will not have a beneficial effect on the world environment. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there should be a special case for combined heat and power schemes, which could perhaps be exempt from the levy?

Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Of course we understand the concerns of manufacturing industry. That is why we have said that we will not take an across-the-board approach to the levy but will set significantly reduced levy rates for energy-intensive sectors that agree our targets for improving energy efficiency.
On the issue of renewables, we have not ruled out the possibility of an exemption. We are consulting on how to treat combined heat and power schemes within the climate change levy, as they can make a substantial contribution to improving energy efficiency, thereby cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: After the fiasco of road fuel duties—which have effectively made the British haulage industry uncompetitive in European terms—why are the Government planning to do the same on a wider basis next year by imposing a general energy tax on the rest of industry? How will the Minister answer the many international firms that have explained to her that, even at a lower or rebated level, they will have to respond to the additional business tax by switching their operations and their investment away from the United Kingdom?
How can the Government expect to be taken seriously on this issue when, at the same time, they are forbidding many of the same firms to invest in gas-fired electricity generating plants, which would cut carbon dioxide emissions? When will the Government sort themselves out on this issue and remove this threat to competitiveness, jobs and industry, which will do nothing for the environment in the longer term?

Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the transport industry and wrong about the impact of the climate change levy. As Lord Marshall proposed, there must be recognition of the special position of the energy-intensive sectors. That is why, following his recommendations, we said that there will not be an across-the-board approach to the levy. There will be significantly reduced rates for those industries, providing that they agree the targets for energy efficiency improvements.
We are in detailed negotiation with industry about this issue, in line with our statement of principles on environmental taxation. Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman has been reduced to making offensive remarks in the Finance Bill Standing Committee about Lord Marshall, who has done so much to move this debate forward, particularly in the business community. It shows once again how completely out of touch this extremist Conservative party is with the business community.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed climate change levy would

be a nightmare for many small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in my constituency; and that cutting a deal with major energy users will be of little or no help to them? Does she agree that measures that lead to booming supermarket profits but busts in large swathes of the manufacturing sector are absolutely no good for the British economy? Will my hon. Friend look to reducing the proportion of national insurance rebates, increasing the amount of money allocated to energy efficiency schemes, and ring-fencing some of them for small and medium-sized businesses?

Ms Hewitt: Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement, the new climate change levy will entail no increase in business taxation because the revenues will be recycled both through a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, thus helping to promote employment, and through specific support—as my hon. Friend suggests—to small and medium-sized enterprises to help them achieve greater energy efficiency.
We made it very clear in our statement of intent on environmental taxation that we would always design environmental taxation in order to protect and, where possible, enhance the international competitiveness of British industry. That is what we are doing in our negotiations with industry, and I trust that my hon. Friend will support us in seeking not only to protect competitiveness but to reduce environmental damage.

EU (UK Contribution)

Sir Teddy Taylor: What estimate he has made of the gross and net contributions by the United Kingdom to the EU in the current calendar year; and what the figures were in 1998. [87065]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): In line with established practice, the Government are arranging for information about the UK's gross and net contribution for the years in question to be published shortly, in the annual White Paper "European Community Finances".

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the Government do not appear to have those figures, do they agree that the gross contribution to the European Union exceeds £100 billion since we joined, and that the net contribution of £33 billion has cost the average British family £2,400? In view of the appalling amount of fraud and mismanagement in the EU, can the Government give us an assurance that they will not agree to further expenditure by the EU, and that they will argue strongly for a fairer contribution by the United Kingdom, which, under Governments of both parties, has paid in a huge amount since we joined?

Mr. Milburn: That is precisely what the Government succeeded in obtaining for the UK at Berlin. The Opposition argued that we would lose the UK's abatement, but we retained it. Moreover, we got a good deal for the regions and nations of our country, with objective 2 status, objective 1 status and so on.
It is always useful to have a question from the hon. Gentleman on European issues. Not so long ago, he was a voice in the wilderness on the Conservative Benches,


but now he represents mainstream Conservative opinion on Europe. He is a reminder that the Conservative party's position on Europe is to weaken Britain in Europe, to isolate Britain in Europe and, ultimately, to withdraw Britain from Europe.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures will highlight the indolence and negative approach of the previous Government to Europe, by contrast with other member states—for example, the Republic of Ireland, which can show a great deal for its proactive commitment? Given the Government's intention to play a full role in Europe, is my right hon. Friend as confident as I am about the figures that will emerge in future?

Mr. Milburn: My right hon. Friend is right. The best way for Britain to get the best from Europe is to take a leading role in Europe, and that is what we have done. The lifting of the beef ban, the successful retention of the UK's abatement, and more investment in our regions and nations show what happens when a UK Government take a leading role in Europe, rather than standing on the sidelines, as the previous Government did.
It is worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members, as my right hon. Friend has just done, that 3 million jobs and 60 per cent. of our trade depend on our relationships with Europe. We are securing jobs, investment and industry by engaging in Europe. Those would all be threatened by the Conservative party.

Road Fuel Duty

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on his policy on taxation of road fuel. [87067]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed the Government's commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, in line with our Kyoto and domestic

targets. The road fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the previous Government, is an important part of the Government's policy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to improve local air quality. We estimate that the fuel duty escalator will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon annually by 2010.

Mr. Winterton: I am not sure that that is an answer to the question. Does the Minister accept that practically all goods and products that are delivered to shops, factories and other premises throughout the United Kingdom are delivered by road? Does she believe that not only the managers and directors, but the employees of all the transport companies in my constituency—Kirks Transport, Swains Transport, Coopers Transport, Whittakers Transport, Stevens Transport and Dane Valley Transport—are wrong when they say that the Government are following a policy that is detrimental to the UK haulage industry and is increasing costs dramatically? Further, the policy acts against the interests of the many people who live in rural areas where there is no public transport and never will be. Many of those people are on low wages. Will the Minister change the policy and end the fuel escalator?

Ms Hewitt: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on mentioning so many of his local transport firms. I seem to recall that he supported the previous Government, who introduced and increased the fuel duty escalator. This Government have cut corporation tax and have frozen the rate of vehicle excise duty for lorries. I hope that he will congratulate us on that.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that air pollution in this country contributes to more than 8,000 deaths every year and to more than 10,000 annual hospital admissions. Every sector, including road transport, must make its contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality by finding more efficient ways of transporting goods and people. I notice that the Conservative party these days opposes not only tax credits and child benefit but measures that will improve children's health.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 28 JUNE—Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

TUESDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day].

Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Delays in the Issue of Passports". Followed by a debate entitled "Planning and Transport Congestion". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

WEDNESDAY 30 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 1 JULY—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

It may be convenient for the House if I say at this point that, if agreement is achieved at the political talks in Belfast by the deadline of 30 June set by the Prime Minister, it will be the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as soon as possible thereafter to lay a devolution order under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, appointing the day for the transfer of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. A draft order would come before this House and the House of Lords on 1 July for approval. Of course it is not possible to be certain of the outcome of the negotiations, but I thought that it would be helpful for the House to be aware of the Government's intentions at this stage in case an agreement is reached next week.

FRIDAY 2 JULY—Debate on drugs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 5 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY 6 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY 9 JULY—The House will not be sitting.

The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 7 July there will be a debate on 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget Overview European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the
Official Report.

[Wednesday 7 July 1999:

European Standing Committee B—European Union document: SEC(99) 6000: 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-xxi (1998–99).]

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business the following week.
The right hon. Lady referred to Northern Ireland. As she knows, the situation there continues to cause concern on both sides of the House. We support the Good Friday agreement, and we all hope that the talks will have a successful conclusion. Although we have Northern Ireland questions on Wednesday and the possibility of a debate on a draft order, I wonder whether that affords the House sufficient opportunity to express its views on a serious matter that has not been debated in the House for some time. Will she, after discussions through the usual channels, consider a statement or debate on Northern Ireland?
The House would still like to debate the report of the royal commission on long-term care, which was published some time ago and is of interest to many of our constituents. Can the right hon. Lady shed any light on that? When might we have such a debate?
When can we have our usual debate on policing in London, in the light of the serious and deplorable riots in the City of London last week?
May I press the right hon. Lady on time for debates on public expenditure and the economy? I have raised the matter on many occasions, and over several months. It is not right for the House of Commons to have no framework for discussion of key issues of this kind. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that we will debate the economy before the House rises for the recess, and that she will then set out how and when the House will debate the economy, and public expenditure, during the course of a parliamentary year?
I see from the Order Paper that the Secretary of State for Health is to answer a written parliamentary question on medical cloning. In view of the interest and controversy surrounding the issue, would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House?
There is mounting interest in the dates relating to the summer recess. We all understand the difficulties involved, but could the right hon. Lady shed some light on the matter, so that the many people who work here can begin to make realistic plans?

Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the whole House wants the discussions in Northern Ireland to have a successful outcome. I shall ensure that the issue is raised through the usual channels—although, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, there are Northern Ireland questions, and there may also be potential for a debate. The matter will have to be kept under review.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of long-term care—a matter that he has raised on a number of occasions. Discussions are continuing but, as will be clear to him, the Government have a heavy programme of legislation and, because of events in Kosovo, have also had a heavy programme of debates. Although I am


conscious of the fact that the House wants to discuss issues such as long-term care, I am not sure that it will be able to do so at an early date, although I do not rule that out in the slightly longer term.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on policing in London. I agree that the events of recent days make the issue even more pertinent, and I hope to find time for such a debate in the near future.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for a debate on economic matters. Of course, we have just had Treasury questions. Discussions have been taking place about the pattern of future debates, and I have proposals which I hope can be discussed and agreed through the usual channels—perhaps, if we are lucky, as early as next week. The right hon. Gentleman pressed me to arrange a debate before the summer recess. I expect there to be a public expenditure debate before then and, as I said, I hope to be able to make proposals for the pattern of such debates over the year.
The right hon. Gentleman pressed for a statement on medical claims.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Cloning, not claims.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman pressed for such a statement, but I think that he will understand that a good many statements have been made. The Government have undertaken to try to avoid statements on Opposition days, which compresses the time available. It is a difficult situation. As you have pointed out in the past, Madam Speaker, there is nothing improper about Ministers' making policy decisions known by means of written answers on occasion, although obviously we try to arrange for statements to be made when that is possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about recess dates. I am well aware that both Members and staff are anxious to make their arrangements. Uncertainties remain about possible future business, but I hope to be able to give the House more information in next week's business statement.

Mr. David Winnick: At a time when we are learning of terrible atrocities in Kosovo, can we be reassured that, if and when the guilty are brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal, Lord Bingham will have no input whatever in the sentencing or appeal procedure? In view of his latest outburst, would it not be appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to consider his own position?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern that those who are responsible for events in Kosovo should be brought to justice. I rather suspect, however, that I might fall foul of your strictures, Madam Speaker, were I to be drawn further down the path that my hon. Friend has identified.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Health for an immediate—early, at least—statement on new-variant CJD? Has she seen this morning's press report to the effect that an instruction has been issued by the Department of Health that there may

be a risk of contamination from the use of trial contact lenses? The Association of British Dispensing Opticians apparently had no advance notification of the instruction. There has certainly been no notice of it to the House, and no explanation of what is happening.
The Leader of the House will recognise that there is very real concern about new-variant CJD, and that it has been a long time since the Department of Health, or any other Department, gave any indication of the Government's current thinking on it. This latest announcement has all the hallmarks of a knee-jerk reaction such as the House suffered on 20 March 1996, when the previous Government made their bombshell announcement.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is felt on both sides of the House. I cannot undertake to find time for an urgent debate on the matter, although I shall certainly draw his anxieties to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is my understanding that the precise terms of advice and guidance to opticians are being worked on in consultation with the professional bodies. However, I think that both sides of the House will understand that my right hon. Friend wished to alert people, at the earliest possible date, to a possible risk identified to him by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the Government's policy on reducing the licence fee for small cars? Many constituents are now finding that, although vehicles are registered as 1100 cc, technical details and obstacles are preventing many elderly people and people on low incomes from benefiting from the Government's policy, thereby creating great unrest and unfairness in many areas. The House should have an opportunity to resolve that problem and to try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be a margin of tolerance, between 1100 cc and 1200 cc. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the matter?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must admit that the problem that he describes had not previously come to my attention, although I can well understand why it would cause anxiety and discontent. Although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we shall have two days' debate-5 and 6 July—on the Finance Bill. He may find an opportunity to raise the issue then.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Although I appreciatively reinforce the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on policing in London, I understand that, next week, because of the creation of the Welsh Assembly, the Standing Order underpinning the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs may fall. When might the Leader of the House contemplate having a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the issue, as I had


not been aware that the Standing Order might fall. Also, I certainly take his point about the interest in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, and am mindful that such reports are important and should be considered by the House. Equally, he will understand that there is great time pressure, particularly at the end of the Session. I therefore cannot give him the undertaking he seeks, but undertake to bear the matter in mind.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Before the end of the Session, will my right hon. Friend take back to the relevant Committee the whole question of Members of Parliament not having the right to speak in the House about their visit to an overseas territory if that visit was not made with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union? It is slightly absurd that, although the House of Commons will know who is paying for a particular trip—it will be recorded—the hon. Members involved cannot raise any issue about that particular country. As, presumably, the whole point of hon. Members travelling the globe is to get a mild inkling of what is going on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would it not be sensible at least to look at the rule again?

Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the great anxiety in the House that there should be absolute probity and transparency. I am not sure whether I ought to say this, but I have considerable sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is not entirely clear to me what would be the mechanism or how easy it would be to trigger re-examination of these matters. However, some hon. Members are involved in discussing them and they may like to take her observations on board, as well as the clear welcome that her words received across the House and in all parties. It is important for us to have the highest possible standards but, equally, as my hon. Friend said, if hon. Members have a valuable contribution to make and the position is clear and known, I understand her observations and her concern.

Rev. Martin Smyth: You will know, Madam Speaker, that I have been pressing for a debate on Northern Ireland for quite some time as Question Time does not allow us to examine certain issues. The Leader of the House may be aware that police salaries have been increased by 4.5 per cent. and that 80 per cent. of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's expenditure goes on personnel; yet, as a result of budgetary pressure, the police are not now able to do neighbourhood patrols. That is because the House is not aware that the RUC is still focused primarily on dealing with those who are disturbing the peace and on terrorism. May I press the Leader of the House for a debate and express the desire that, in the coming days, the Government do not travel down the road of "hope so" rather than that of reality?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly add the hon. Gentleman's representations to those that I have already received requesting a debate. I understand his point about the work of the RUC. With regard to his final words,

almost everyone in the House hopes that there can be agreement in Northern Ireland because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in Kashmir, there are still incursions and problems between India and Pakistan. There is grave concern as both countries now have nuclear power and ballistic missiles. Is there any possibility of a debate on that critical situation before the recess?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, although my hon. Friend's concern about the problems and the fighting in Kashmir is shared across the House. Everyone hopes that the talks that have been taking place will ease some of the difficulties. However, although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, no doubt we will have a pre-recess debate and my hon. Friend may have the opportunity to raise the matter then.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to Ministers to have a debate in the House about the way in which they announce new business, new proposals and new policies outside the House? She must be aware that there is increasing concern about the propensity of Ministers to make announcements outside the House. Not only does that allow them to avoid questioning by right hon. and hon. Members, but, inevitably, it diminishes the standing of the House of Commons with regard to the Government and enhances the role of the media and the areas where the announcements are made.
I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that this is becoming an urgent and important matter. It need not be a long debate; a fairly short one would suffice, but it would help to clarify in the minds of Ministers what their responsibilities are and what their relationship with the House of Commons should be, and stop this distressing trend that seems to be going unnoticed and unchecked.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was always the same.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it was ever thus. The statistics show that Ministers in this Government have made far more statements to the House than their predecessors did.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will know that the export of arms to countries with bad human rights records is an important issue for many of us. Preventing such exports was also an important plank in the Labour Government's ethical foreign policy. Does she have any information on when the report on strategic arms exports for 1998 will be published and whether we shall have a debate in the House on it? The report for 1997 appeared two years late. One reason given was a problem with the computers. Is there still a problem with the computers, or can we expect the 1998 report to be published before the recess?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the likely publication date. Happily, I am also not aware of whether there is still


a problem with the computers. The delay to which my hon. Friend referred arose because of problems not only with the computers but with the records, which were time-consuming to resolve. I do not know whether the problems have been resolved sufficiently to enable a date to be set for the publication of the next report, but I shall draw her request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sure that hon. Members know that, this week, we suffered our first losses of service men in Kosovo—Sergeant Balaram Rai and Lieutenant Gareth Evans of 69 Gurkha Squadron. I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing condolences to the families. Lieutenant Evans came from my constituency—in fact, he was from Congresbury, the village in which I live. I hope that his family will gain some consolation from the selflessness and bravery that he showed during the action. There will be a debate on Thursday of next week on armed service personnel. Will the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that that opportunity is taken to address the grave concerns about the safety of personnel in the difficult circumstances in Kosovo? I look forward to hearing some words to that effect.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will wish to express its sympathy and to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about recognising the bravery of those who have suffered and about sending condolences to the families concerned. I shall draw his wish for those concerns to be reflected in next week's debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Three hours ago, I received a faxed letter from the military aircraft division of British Aerospace, telling me that 880 jobs will be lost at Warton in Lancashire and a total of 2,200 jobs will go across the division. A decision has been made to build Eurofighter—more than 230 planes are going to the RAF at a cost of £40 million each, and more than £10,000 million of public money is being spent, most of which is going to British Aerospace. It is incomprehensible that there should be such major restructuring at the same time, with lots of jobs being lost. Aerospace is the life-blood of Lancashire. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate to discuss the important matter of aerospace and restructuring in detail?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn of the matters raised by my hon. Friend. As he knows from experience, I well understand the importance of the aerospace industry in his part of the country. Restructuring in the aerospace industry is a matter of interest to many across the House. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate. My hon. Friend will be aware of the process by which hon. Members seek to raise issues of wider concern for which a longer debate might be appropriate. Knowing his assiduity on behalf of his constituents, I am sure that he will pursue that avenue.

Mr. John Hayes: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is in the mood to name and shame. You, Madam Speaker, will be as delighted as I am that my county of Lincolnshire,

under the enlightened control of Councillor Speechley and his team, does rather well in the right hon. Gentleman's list. Given that naming and shaming, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the steps that the Government are taking to reduce bureaucracy and red tape in our schools? I do not say that the problem started in 1997 but, as I go round schools, teachers tell me that it is getting worse. They are suffering from initiative fatigue. Heads want to be left to lead and teachers want to be left to teach. In the context of that debate, may we have a list of shame of those Ministers who have not only increased their personal bureaucracy with extra special advisers and lackeys, but imposed extra bureaucracy and red tape on the public and private sectors?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to reduce the amount that the Government spend on bureaucracy and red tape. I know that he will be pleased that his authority comes out of the tables well, but he will also know that they show 31 authorities delegating less than 80 per cent., with Tory Westminster the worst at 75 per cent. As to the hon. Gentleman's further remarks, I simply say that the Government seek to run an efficient and tight ship, and do so.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the energy industry, especially on mis-selling by domestic gas suppliers? Many problems in my constituency arise from the unscrupulous tactics used by companies to trick people into changing their supplier. Those companies then make it extremely difficult for the customer to return to the original supplier. I am sure that many other hon. Members know of such problems and I hope that, following such a debate, the Government might feel it necessary to take some action to curb such rogue companies.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point and her pressure for a debate to focus attention on such matters. However, the matter lies very much within the responsibility of the regulator who, I know, has expressed concern about it in the past. I shall draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of the relevant Minister, but I am sure that she has also taken action to draw it to the regulator's attention.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House about the lack of variety in artificial limbs supplied by the NHS, particularly for children? I have in mind the case of my eight-year-old constituent, Laura Giddings, who, the right hon. Lady may be aware, lost her leg in the blast in the Planet Hollywood explosion in South Africa. Limbs have to be replaced frequently as a child grows but, because nothing available on the NHS looks realistic, the child's psychological trauma is greatly increased. In such a statement, the Secretary of State could explain why, if money is the problem, parents who decide to pay privately for a better-quality limb should not be given at least an amount equivalent to the cost of an NHS limb, which they would have had free. That arrangement applies to wheelchairs, so why cannot it apply to artificial limbs for children?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement or to raise a debate on the


matter in the near future because there is so much pressure on the House's time. However, the whole House will sympathise with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that he has drawn it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I will add to that the sympathy that is felt across the House.

Ms Joan Ryan: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on Europe? It is extremely important that we have such a debate at an early stage because of the extremism of the Conservative party on Europe, as it seeks to abandon the right-wing European People's party in search of more extreme friends elsewhere. It is important that all our MEPs can represent the best interests of the British people, taking the lead from the Labour Government. I fail to see how any Conservative MEP—given the position of the parliamentary Conservative party—can represent the best interests of the British people in Europe.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's desire for such a debate, and it would be attractive to spend time focusing on both the extremism and the division within the parliamentary Conservative party, whether here or in the European Parliament. However, tempting such a thought may be, I fear that it is a luxury for which I cannot, at present, offer to find time.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the Government have clearly made contingency plans to change the business next week should there be agreement in Northern Ireland, and in the light of the serious threat of violence from Mr. Adams, which was published in The Times yesterday, have the Government made contingency plans to ensure that any violence perpetrated by the IRA or other terrorist organisations, if there is no agreement and if they do not get their own way, can be contained to ensure that the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland enjoy peace and quiet over the next few weeks?

Mrs. Beckett: Government plans for eventualities in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—they do not fall at my door. The announcement that I made was for the business of the House to accommodate the eventuality of an order needing to be laid because agreement had been reached. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the hope of all in the House that agreement will be reached.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the launch of the rural audit last week. This publication was commissioned by the many Labour Members who now represent rural or semi-rural constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it would be timely for the House to have a proper debate, ahead of the autumn publication of the expected White Paper on rural affairs? The Government have committed themselves to addressing the many problems in rural Britain that we inherited from the previous Government. Would it not be helpful for the

House to debate this matter before the summer, so as to inform the decisions to be made in the production of the White Paper?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the launch of that document, which was an excellent piece of work and a credit to my hon. Friends who represent rural areas and who are doing so much to bring their concerns to the attention of the House. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that it would be timely for him and his colleagues to have a debate on those matters before the autumn. I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate, but my hon. Friend may like to bear in mind that, at some point in the autumn, an alternative forum will open in Westminster Hall. He may like to put in an early bid for it.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Government promised an integrated transport policy, but this last week has been awful for Britain's travelling public. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister is losing out at every turn to the Treasury. More than £30 billion is taken from the transport industry, and less than £6 billion is put back. There have been ghastly problems on the tube and we have had the embarrassment of the Prime Minister zooming down a bus lane to avoid queues. In Shropshire, I continue to receive desperate representations from the haulage industry, and there is a £94 million backlog on Shropshire's rural roads. Could we have an urgent debate on the disintegrating transport policy of the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed that I have announced a debate—next week, I think—on transport, in Opposition time. No doubt he will seek to catch your eye then, Madam Speaker.
I doubt that the £94 million backlog on Shropshire's roads arose since the general election. Before the general election, as we travelled around the countryside meeting people in the business community, we found that among their most pressing concerns was the desperate need for long-term investment in the transport infrastructure, which they had despaired of ever getting from the previous Government. It takes time to turn these things around.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that, in Treasury questions, the Chief Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that he had to wait for the answer to my question, Question 29,
What (a) has been and (b) he estimates will be the effect on the Contingency Fund of (i) the conflict in Kosovo and (ii) the measures to be taken following the peace agreement relating to Kosovo",
that question, alas, was, astonishingly, not reached. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Defence Secretary to give a proper answer next Thursday on what are the costs so far and the likely costs not only of Kosovo, but of obligations that this country seems to be accruing towards the former Yugoslavia?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend identifies a genuine difficulty for Ministers, in that it would not always be right to pre-empt an answer due to be given on a later question in response to a supplementary question from someone else, as that can cause resentment. I know, however, that he was making a different point of substance about information that he seeks from my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that he is almost certain to be asked that question next Thursday.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the new meat hygiene charges? The fact that a fully qualified veterinary surgeon must be present when animals are slaughtered has had the most devastating effect in the Vale of York, and the few remaining small abattoirs are likely to close soon if the charges remain. The cost of slaughtering animals has more than doubled since 1 April, even though the charges should not have been introduced until next year. That is making our producers much less competitive, as the Charges do not apply to the producers of imported meat.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of those concerns. The Government are reviewing the charges and an announcement is expected shortly. Agriculture questions are on 1 July and a further opportunity to press my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may arise then.

Mr. David Drew: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and the response of my right hon. Friend.
Can we have a debate on prescription charges? After consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Employment, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the way in which prescription charges affect those in receipt of a student loan? I want to raise the case of my constituent, Lucy Little of Nailsworth, who, because she is from a single-parent family and has to pay her way through university partly by working, now has to pay prescription charges, whereas better-off students who receive money from their parents get free prescriptions.

Mrs. Beckett: I hear and understand my hon. Friend's identification with the rural audit report. I agree that it was excellent.
I am aware that difficulties often arise with prescription charges, although I am obviously not familiar with my hon. Friend's specific constituency case. I fear that I am unlikely to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but I am sure that he will look for other opportunities to raise it.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: May we have an urgent debate on education, following the astonishing press release by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which states:
Blunkett challenges LEAs on red tape spending"?
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State has managed a double whammy of outrageous proportions? He has upset all the local education authorities by his inconsistent and spurious definition of central expenditure and he also continues to alienate teachers, who do not see any extra money trickling down to the classrooms and are suffocating under the daily notes that come from the DfEE instructing them what to do next.

Mrs. Beckett: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made clear,

local authorities were invited to supply the information that has been published and it was repeatedly cross-checked with them. He has also made it plain that, if there is some concern about the accuracy of that information, he will be more than happy for local authorities to publish what they believe to be the accurate figures so that people can examine the two cases side by side. That is a sensible approach. As for teachers not seeing money flowing to schools, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the dramatic decline in class sizes for the youngest children, which was the key pledge made by the Government at the election. The hon. Gentleman mentioned teachers suffering under central control, but we all know who started that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nothing is more important for next Thursday than the special debate on providing devolved powers to the settlement in Northern Ireland? Nobody, certainly on this side of the House, would argue with that. However, in the event of that not happening—I hope that it does—what will be the position of all those people in the Assembly in Northern Ireland who will continue to be paid for producing what appears to be, for the past 12 months, nothing less than gridlock?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure of the answer to that question. Everybody shares the view that few things could be more important within the United Kingdom than to see a settlement in Northern Ireland. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of people would wish not to see that settlement endorsed, and the vast majority of people, wherever they live in these isles, wish to see a settlement that puts behind us the pain, violence and brutality that has disfigured that province for so long.

Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the National Air Traffic Service? Last summer, an announcement was made that the service would be sold off. Since then, the proposal has received major criticism from the unions and many Labour Back Benchers. When will the Labour party's disagreements on the issue be resolved so that we can have either a decision to proceed or another Government U-turn, because the lack of progress is causing a loss of confidence in that important service?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to provide an early announcement on that matter, but I will undertake to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure which side he is on, as—if I recall correctly—the proposal was originally made by the Conservative Government. For the Conservatives to reverse their position would be not unusual, but commonplace.

Mr. James Gray: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the report by the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers will be issued on Tuesday? Will she find time for an urgent debate on that report, on where we are to put the 3.8 million houses that we are told we will need in the next 20 years, and on whether ways can be found to encourage people to build them in the north-east and north-west of England which are economically so demanding of them? In that debate,


would it also be possible to examine the scarcely credible claims of the Deputy Prime Minister to be the guardian of the countryside?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the timetable suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the House shares his concern about the issues of planning and housing, but I reject any suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is a less than worthy guardian of the countryside. He is a worthy guardian of all our interests.

Mr. Christopher Chope: May we have an early opportunity to debate the high price that is being paid for the Prime Minister's gimmicks? Would that give us an opportunity to discuss the revelation today by leading general practitioners that it costs as much for one patient to contact NHS Direct as a general practitioner receives for serving that patient for a whole year? That is a misdirection of resources which has been condemned by GPs, who say that the money would be better spent by them on behalf of their patients instead of in pursuit of a gimmick by the Government.
Will the Leader of the House also update us on the progress of the electronic commerce Bill? Has control of the Bill been transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the spooks at the Home Office?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has submitted two separate requests for a debate. I can assure him that, when the Government have something to announce about e-commerce, we will announce it.
I was surprised and disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman describe NHS Direct as a gimmick when it is an extremely worthwhile and potentially very valuable initiative. I am not aware that many general practitioners condemn it. With regard to the general tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I thought it wrong and odd for him to talk about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as someone for ever churning out gimmicks, given his recent record in handling very serious international events in Yugoslavia and Ireland.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the failure of the Government's so-called new deal? A person who completes its training and education option is twice as likely not to find a job as to find one. Youth unemployment has risen in every quarter since the national introduction of the new deal. Moreover, almost half of those who participate in the new deal receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from it. Is it not time that the Secretary of State made a statement accepting the verdict of the Business Services Association, which represents companies with an annual turnover of £8 billion? That organisation's verdict was that the new deal "is not working". Is it not time that the Secretary of State owned up to the fact that his flagship has sunk?

Mrs. Beckett: That is a long and elaborate request for what I assume is an urgent debate. I do not accept any of

the hon. Gentleman's arguments, so I do not accept that there is a need for an urgent debate. The desperate wish of Conservative Members that the new deal should be a failure is a little sad. They want young people who languished in unemployment without hope for many years under a Conservative Government to remain without hope. The Government are not prepared to give up on them. We have put substantial resources into a scheme that is better and more successful than any in this country for many a long year—better, in fact, than any scheme ever before. It is disappointing that Conservative Members would rather gloat over the supposed failure of a scheme than welcome the success of the young people involved in it.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the worrying contrast between statistics developed by the House of Commons Library and the Government's statistical analyses? As was evident in the response by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) during Treasury questions, those two sets of statistics are wholly in conflict. Will the right hon. Lady find time for the House to determine whether the statistics department of the Library is in urgent need of repair, or whether it is the statistics departments of Government services—or the recollections of Ministers—that are in urgent need of repair?

Mrs. Beckett: When we are talking about accuracy in the handling of financial matters, my own recollection is clear. The hon. Gentleman may recall that members of the Conservative Government—they are now on the Opposition Benches—could not be trusted to give reliable statistics and information. One of the tasks willingly undertaken by the Government was to clean up and restore to independence the Government statistical service.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's premise—that there is a conflict between statistics produced by the Library and the underlying case presented by the Government's Treasury team—is contested.

BILL PRESENTED

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND PRODUCER LIABILITY

Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Tony Benn, Audrey Wise, Mr. John McDonnell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John McAllion and Dr. Ian Gibson, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 128].

Opposition Day

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Widows

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the long-overdue extension of widow's benefits to widowers, and the doubling of Bereavement Payments; but notes that this costs only £100 million annually in the long term, compared with the £600 million cut the Government will make through the replacement of widows' pensions by a Bereavement Tax Allowance, the abolition of Dividend Tax Credits and the restriction of Council Tax Benefit on higher-value properties; regrets the Government's woefully inadequate response to next year's halving of widows' entitlement to additional pension; welcomes the fact that this is now under investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman; and calls on the Government to cease their attacks on the living standards of widows.
Before I begin, may I point out to the House an unfortunate transcription mistake? The motion printed in the Order Paper is not that which we had intended. I understand that the original motion was correctly transmitted to the Government and the official Opposition yesterday.

Madam Speaker: Order. The motion that stands on the Order Paper is the one that was given to the House. It was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, it was checked by an officer of the party, and it has been presented to the House. Whatever dealings the Liberal Democrat party has had with the other main parties to try to amend the motion is a matter for that party. The motion on the Order Paper is the motion that the House will debate.

Mr. Rendel: I entirely accept that, Madam Speaker, and I am sorry if I seemed to imply anything else. I merely meant to inform the House of the words that were not properly transcribed. I entirely accept that an error was made, and I apologise to the House for it.
The motion originally transmitted to the official Opposition and the Government last night contained, after the words "by a" and before the words "Bereavement Tax Allowance", the words:
Bereavement Allowance; deplores the loss of widows".
I apologise for that unfortunate error. It is one of those things that occasionally happens, but we must take the blame as it happened in our Whips Office last night.
At least two aspects of changes in legislation relating to widows and benefits are welcome. The first is the extension of widows benefits to widowers. For the first time, the benefits are gender neutral, and that is absolutely right. There is no reason to suppose that men who have been bereaved of their spouses need any less protection than women similarly bereaved. It is unfortunate that change has taken so long to occur. The Government waited until the pressure from a European court case forced them to make a change that should have happened long before.
Secondly, the Government were correct to double the bereavement payment from £1,000 to £2,000. The original payment was introduced long ago, and the costs of bereavement have considerably increased since then. Most of us have probably been involved in arrangements for a funeral, and we all know that costs have been escalating for some time. The £1,000 payment should have been increased before now, and the extent of the increase is evidence of that. Such a big jump should not have been necessary.
Rather less welcome is the fact that bereavement payment is still extended only to those below pension age. It would have been better to extend it to all. At the very least, if that was all that the Government could afford following their massive cuts in widows benefits, the payment should have been extended to the very poorest pensioners. It is odd that those below pension age should receive extra help with paying for funeral and other costs, while those above that age, who are often the poorest, should not receive equivalent help.
There are of course ways in which the allowance could be set up so that only the poorest pensioners received the payment. As we suggested in the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it may be possible to make the bereavement payment only to pensioners already on income support who had therefore proved that their means were very small. The Liberal Democrats would prefer to go beyond that because, as we have often said in the House, some of the poorest pensioners are for one reason or another not in receipt of income support. A case can easily be made for extending the payment to those of pension age, especially the poorest.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the Budget press releases issued by the Inland Revenue, the Chancellor promised that these very people would be taken care of? It subsequently emerged that they would not be taken care of and the promise had to be retracted in Committee.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am delighted to have it added to my argument. It is a worthwhile point to include.
One further point that must be made on this subject takes up something that the Government said in the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. They claimed that there was no need to hand a bereavement payment to pensioners because the equivalent sums were included in the benefits paid to pensioners. We pointed out that, if that were true, it was surely illogical. One assumes that the payment will in most cases be applicable only once in someone's retirement. It is illogical that the one-off payment should be spread over all the pensions and benefits given to pensioners. It is as if the Government were forcing people to start saving something out of their pensions and benefits from the moment that they retired for the day their spouse died. The sensible way is for the Government to make a one-off benefit.
I have pointed out one or two things that are right about the Government's benefit changes. What is wrong about them?

Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have also


introduced a carers pension, which will apply particularly to women and help women who have stayed at home to look after children or people with disabilities? It is a big support for family life and for women, especially widows.

Mr. Rendel: We are debating widows in this case. Some widows and some widowers are carers, but that is a different aspect of the changes. We will no doubt welcome many other aspects of the benefit changes that the Government have promised but that perhaps have not yet been introduced. We are talking specifically about widows on this occasion.

Ms Keeble: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should talk only about matters that relate to widows, why has he included higher-value properties in the motion? What does that have to do specifically with widows?

Mr. Rendel: I assure the hon. Lady that there is a specific reason for including higher-value properties. It is largely widows who live in such properties. As I was about to explain to the House, I intend to leave that aspect of the motion to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who will talk about that and two other aspects in a moment.
The aspects on which I will not take the time of the House at this stage are the abolition of the bereavement tax allowance, the abolition of dividend tax credits and the restriction of council tax benefit on higher-value properties. As the hon. Lady has referred to it, I shall explain further. It is often people who are left living alone in large properties when their families have moved out who are hit by that cut. That is sadly often widows.
What else is wrong with the Government's policies? The two aspects of our motion on which I intend to concentrate are the replacement of widows pensions by a bereavement allowance and the state earnings-related pension scheme. Government figures in answer to written questions show that the first will mean a long-term cut of £600 million to widows, compared with the £100 million cost of all the things that we have supported and welcomed. The long-term net saving to the Government—the net cut in benefits to widows—from all the changes amounts to £500 million. That is what the Government are taking from widows in the long term.
The Government have told us all along that they intend to cut the welfare bill but, instead of going for the areas where we would expect them to make savings, such as fraud, they are targeting some of the most vulnerable groups, including widows. All those who were expecting to get widows pensions believe that they have been paid for out of national insurance contributions; they are a contributory benefit. The spouses of people whose widows pensions are being removed have paid contributions to them and have expected during all their working lives that their widows would receive the pensions.
The wives of some people who are at the end of their working lives, or who are approaching that point, are much younger than they are. I have a constituent of 65 whose wife is only 50. If he dies before she reaches retirement age, she will get not the widows pension but only the small bereavement allowance, which lasts for

only six months. Because he has already reached retirement age, he has no means of setting aside extra savings to make up for what he had expected her to get. As with the SERPS change, there is a strong case for saying that, were the Government to play fair with such people, they would at least delay the introduction of the new scheme to allow those who could still make up the difference to put aside extra savings. That would reduce the risk of there being people who cannot make it up because they have already reached retirement age.
A more important argument against targeting widows by removing their pensions is that the bereavement allowance that will replace them is available for far too short a time. The Government propose that it should last only six months. Most hon. Members will have had people write to them to say that six months is far too short a time to expect a widow to get back on her feet after bereavement. Bereavement is traumatic and takes time to get over. Many widows may have been out of work for some time if they have been staying at home looking after families or ailing spouses before their deaths. If they are not well trained in modern skills for modern jobs, things may be difficult for them. They may need time to retrain before they can get back into work. As we all know, it takes some time to find a job.
To suggest that one should be able to go straight back to work within a month or two is absurd in the modern age. Even if one has completed a period of training, it may still take some time to get back into employment. In effect, the Government are telling people, who may have been out of work for some years, that, the day after their husbands die, they should walk into the nearest jobcentre and say, "I want a job. I am available, I am trained and I can work within a few months." That is absurd.
Some cases of bereavement are even more traumatic; many Members will have heard of such cases. I quote from the response of the National Association of Widows and the Widows Advisory Trust to the document, "A New Contract for Welfare: Support in Bereavement", in which those proposals were originally outlined. The response states:
To pay this benefit for 6 months makes a mockery of the title, 'Support in Bereavement'.
I also quote the words of Patricia Thomas of Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide—I am sure that we can all understand that to lose a spouse through suicide is an even more traumatic event, and one that it is likely to take even longer to overcome. Patricia Thomas writes:
Unfortunately I am well qualified to comment, having been widowed when my husband committed suicide 5 years ago. I was 45 and left not only with the responsibility of supporting two teenage sons and an eight year old daughter, but also having to face the fact that I had to make provision for my old age, as my husband's private pension could not be inherited by myself.
She makes the same point that I made about getting back into full-time work. She writes:
I discovered how difficult it is to find full-time work. Both ageism and employers' worries about the conflicting demands on mothers with school age children appear to be significant factors … I have had poorly paid posts of 20 and 24 hours per week, both of which have ended in redundancy.
That is the real situation for widows in our society today; it is not one that is met at all by the Government's proposals.
Given those difficulties, the Government should consider at least two new measures. First, there should, at the very least, be a longer lead time before the


introduction of those proposals. Secondly, the bereavement allowance should be paid for much longer than the six months that the Government propose. It could be paid for up to five years and the Government would still achieve a net saving on their proposals. To pay the allowance for six months would give them £500 million net savings; they could easily afford to pay it for up to five years and there would still be a net saving.
The second part of our motion relates to the SERPS changes. That problem originated with the previous Conservative Government; no one should blame the current Labour Government for the fiasco of the initial failure to warn people about the change initiated by the Conservative Government in 1986. That Government introduced a policy of halving the additional pension, based on SERPS, paid to women after their husbands die. That halving is due to take place from 5 April next year. In one sense, people were given considerable warning—unlike the changes to which I referred earlier, for which we ask for a longer lead time—because the previous Government allowed a long lead time from 1986. However, although there was a long lead time, no one knew about it, because the previous Government failed to tell people what they were doing. It was worse than that; they continued to send out leaflets and letters from the Department of Social Security making it clear that the full SERPS entitlement would transfer. They made no mention whatever of the fact that it would make a difference when the male partner died.
Unfortunately, the present Government cannot be absolved of all blame. Having come to power in 1997, they continued to issue wrong information through the Department. The leaflets, which had been corrected by then, made some mention of the change, but people who wrote to the Department were often given the wrong information. We have considerable evidence to the effect that letters were sent out late last year giving people the wrong information.

Mr. Pickles: I apologise for stopping the hon. Gentleman in mid flow, but I must point out that letters giving the wrong information were sent out this year.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman just got in before me; I was about to come to that point. There is evidence that, as recently as April this year, one or two inaccurate letters crept through the system and were sent out—even after the Government had explicitly told the Benefits Agency to clarify the position.
I asked the Minister by way of an oral question whether he planned to introduce some sort of compensation for people who had been misled by his Department. He promised me on 8 March this year that there would he a compensation scheme: he did not say what it would be, but he said that he would at least consider it. That is welcome news so far as it goes. However, more than three months later, we have been given no details of what compensation scheme is expected. People are worried about what will happen. They took the wrong decision, based on false information from the Government, and they do not know what will happen to their wives when they die. Some such people may be aware that they are nearing the ends of their lives and they do not know in what state their widows will be left.
I am happy to say that, as a result of efforts by me, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, the parliamentary ombudsman has decided to examine the issue. I hope that

he will advise the Government not only that they should introduce some sort of compensatory scheme for those who can prove that they were misled and that their financial situation has been damaged as a result, but that the whole scheme should be delayed. The introduction of the scheme should be put off until beyond next year. The ombudsman has promised that he will inform us of his advice to the Government well in advance of the provisional implementation date of 5 April next year. I hope that we will get his advice soon. I hope also that the Government will not wait for the ombudsman's advice before making up their own mind as to what sort of compensation scheme should be introduced. The Government must move ahead: three months is quite long enough to work up a decent scheme.
There is widespread fury about what has happened among those who have been misled. I am sure that all hon. Members have received letters from all over the country from people who are angry about what has occurred. Mr. W. K. Bennett wrote to say:
I could not believe that such an important change to the income of so many people had not received more publicity (from either the Government, politicians or the media).
Mrs. Betty Tilford wrote:
perhaps we should all kill off our husbands before the 6th April deadline".
In saying that, she picked up on the comments of the present Leader of the House when she spoke to the original legislation in 1986. She said:
I advise anyone who is married to a man who is lingering on 5 April quickly to shove a pillow over his face, because it will halve the pension entitlement if the husband dies on the following day. It is extraordinary that the Government should place people in such a position … They will be taking away rights that have been earned."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 470.]
There is a further aspect to the campaign to get the Government to change their mind—

Mr. Phil Willis: I trust that my hon. Friend is not proposing such draconian ways of dealing with the situation. Does he not find it bizarre that, a few months ago, the House debated the mis-selling of private pensions in the second-tier phase, and that the Government ran television advertisements alerting people to the fact that they may have been mis-sold second-tier pensions, yet there has not been a single television advertisement or press release and no campaign to alert people to a measure that could have an immense effect on their lives?

Mr. Rendel: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems unbelievably hypocritical that the Government should force the private pension industry to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. It is disgraceful. If the private section of the insurance industry is to be forced to write to people to ask whether they feel that they may have been given bad information, surely the Government should do likewise with regard to SERPS.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want him to give the House the wrong impression. Can he confirm that he strongly


supports, as I hope that he does, the action that the Government have taken to deal with the mis-selling scandal that we inherited from the previous Government?

Mr. Rendel: I certainly support that. The very fact that I support it means that I would support the Government acting in the same way about their own mis-selling scandal. If the Minister is so keen for us to support his action in relation to the private pension industry, that implies that he should be doing exactly the same with regard to the mis-selling of SERPS. Perhaps he will intervene again and tell me now whether he is keen to take the same sort of action in the public case as he has demanded that the private sector should take. It seems that the Minister is unwilling to intervene again.
There is a further aspect that proves how widespread is the public's fury. Hon. Members may have noticed that one of the rare occasions on which I obtained a full-page spread in The Sun came a few days ago, as a result of my presentation to the Prime Minister of the petition run by that newspaper, asking for the Government to reconsider what they had done and to introduce proper compensation. The petition was widely supported and demonstrates the importance of the issue and the widespread anger aroused by it.
What should be done? I admit that the Government are in an extremely difficult position. I have made it known to the Minister that he has my sympathy for that. It is difficult to see how to overcome the problem. There is only one fair way for the Government to do so. From the time when the information begins to flow, the introduction of the change should be put off for at least the length of time that people were originally given by way of warning. That means, in effect, that the change should not be fully implemented for another 10 years or so.
That will be expensive, but it is the only fair way of dealing with the problem, and I emphasise again to the Minister that that is what the Government have demanded of the private sector. If the private sector must provide compensation, the Government should do the same.
Compensation should be paid to those who can show that they were misled. The difficulty with the compensation scheme arises because the Government are demanding full evidence not only that people have been misled, but that, as a result of being misled, they changed the decisions that they otherwise would have taken. The House can see how difficult that will be.
People must be able to show that they have been misled. What if, 10 years ago, they telephoned the Department or their local Benefits Agency office and received the wrong advice? How can they now prove that, 10 years ago, they had a telephone conversation in which they were given the wrong advice? They may have something in writing from 10 years ago, but how many of us have kept all the paperwork for the past 10 years, which we may at some point need, if it gave advice that we followed? To prove that a person has been misled is difficult.
The Government are asking people to prove not only that they have been misled, but that they have changed their decision as a result of that false information. They may have decided to do nothing, because they thought that the full additional widows pension that the

Government were offering was sufficient. If they left it at that and did not change their mind, how could they prove that they would have changed their mind had they been given the correct information? I suggest that that is almost impossible.
If we are to have a compensation scheme, there must be no quibbling about the evidence, and it must be full and fair to people who claim that they would have made a decision even though they cannot prove it.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. What would the compensation scheme cost the Exchequer based on what he has told us?

Mr. Rendel: I would love to be able to ask the Government what it would cost, but it is impossible to cost a compensation scheme because we have no idea how many cases are involved as the Government have failed to find that out. We cannot possibly cost such a scheme until the Government have done their job properly.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, can he tell us what it would cost if the measure were postponed for 10 years, which was his other proposal?

Mr. Rendel: I do not have the figures with me, but they were given in a written answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, so they are available to the hon. Gentleman. It would be expensive: it would cost billions of pounds. It would cost more depending on how long it were delayed. The cost would reduce over the years, because the man and the widow would eventually die. If I remember correctly—perhaps the Minister has the figures—it would be about £10 billion over the next 10 years. I have admitted that it would be expensive, but it is the only completely fair way of going about it.

Mr. Timms: I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman by giving the figures. It would cost about £5.5 billion cumulatively over the first 10 years, and £1 billion a year thereafter, although that figure would diminish. It is a substantial sum.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that information. I had already elicited it from him in a written answer. It is slightly less than I said, so that is good.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the scale of the loss to the Government if the deferral took place shows the loss to those who would benefit if his compensation scheme were implemented? Does not that strongly underline the sleight of hand that has been performed on widows, the impact of which will last for decades?

Mr. Rendel: My hon. Friend is right. Any money paid out by the Government is money that they have saved by failing to give the correct information in the past. It is fair to those concerned to pay out this money. I have said all along that the only way in which the Government can


make the situation fair once again is by putting off the introduction of this halving of the addition pension for another 10 years or so.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Where would this money come from? Would it be from 3p on income tax or from cuts in education or the health service?

Mr. Rendel: I am happy to say that it would be up to the Government to find the money, not up to me. The point is that it is money that was, in effect, taken from these widows as a result of the false information that was given. If society as a whole is to play fair by those people, society as a whole must pay its dues. It is unfair to expect widows to pay to reduce taxation for the mass of taxpayers.
Let me say a bit more about the cost to the individual. Mr. Michael Davies of Kidderminster has written a letter saying that an annuity to compensate for the amount that would be lost as a result of the change would cost £47,000. That is the amount that he has been quoted. It is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and gives some idea of the real cost to people who have lost out as a result of the change.
It is hardly surprising that the overall cost to the Government of providing proper compensation for the misinformation that has been handed out will be considerable, but they must answer this question: is it fair for the individuals concerned to have to pay the whole cost, rather than its being paid by society as a whole? I suggest that it is not fair.

Mr. David Drew: If the Government were to prejudge such cases, it is possible that people would not be adequately compensated. The ombudsman's inquiry will facilitate a proper investigation.

Mr. Rendel: I hope that, if the ombudsman comes up with a solution similar to mine, the Government will accept it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the ombudsman's inquiry will provide a good indication of what an objective observer might consider a fair response to the Government's difficulty—a difficulty which, as I have said, originates from what was done by the last Government. But, whatever the ombudsman comes up with, if the Government can guarantee us now that they will follow his recommendations, many people will be much happier.
What have the Government done to widows? In effect, they have dealt widows a quintuple whammy. They have changed the widows' bereavement allowance, abolished dividend tax credits, restricted council tax benefit for higher-value properties, removed widows' pensions, and refused to give proper compensation to those who have been damaged by the change to SERPS.
A great many people who voted for a Labour Government in 1997 have become disillusioned. Those people had great hopes of this Labour Government, and believed that, for once, the poorest and most vulnerable would be supported. Harold Wilson once said, "The Labour party is a crusade, or it is nothing." What crusade have we seen? During the past two years, we have seen a crusade against lone parents, and a crusade against those on incapacity benefit; now we are seeing a crusade against widows.
This is not the sort of Government people hoped that they were electing in 1997. This is a Government who did not deserve to give the people of this country the hope that they had when the Government were elected. This is a Government who have failed those who deserve most.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'supports the Government's proposals to reform bereavement benefits, including the Bereavement Payment, which will provide a tax-free lump sum of £2,000—double the value of the current Widow's Payment; welcomes the additional help given to the children of widowers, who will qualify for the new Widowed Parent's Allowance, which will replace the Widowed Mother's Allowance; welcomes the protection given to widows over 55, who might otherwise have no practical alternative to relying on Income Support; and welcomes the wide range of policies which are designed to assist women to play a full and active part in the community.'.
I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate the Government's policy on bereavement benefits. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for pointing out an error in the drafting of the motion, which is indeed incomprehensible in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper. I must say, having seen his correction to it, it is still a pretty ill-focused, ramshackle and loosely connected collection of topics—but at least now it makes grammatical sense. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats Whips that the motion appeared in that form initially—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There have been far too many sedentary interventions throughout the debate. If hon. Members wish to speak, they must wait and do so in the appropriate way.

Mr. Timms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The speech by the hon. Member for Newbury was one with which, at least in outline, we had already become familiar in the Committee's proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Essentially, he welcomes the Government's measures that involve spending more money; objects to measures that involve spending less; and then goes on to call for a very long list of even more spending measures. His speech bore absolutely no relation to reality. One should expect from someone aspiring to leadership of his party a greater sense of the real choices facing a party in government.
The central feature of our changes to bereavement benefits is their extension to men. It is the first time that men will receive the benefit, which is a very big step forward. Our action has been widely welcomed, even—albeit in passing—by the hon. Member for Newbury. The change was long campaigned for, but bitterly resisted by Conservative Members when they were in government. At long last, the current Government are putting the matter right.
The current system—the one that we inherited—is based on the view that each married couple comprises one independent man, who is the breadwinner, and a woman who depends on him. Over 50 years ago, in his report, Beveridge simply assumed that married women would


stay at home. That view, which underlies the current system, simply does not reflect the real position in which we now find ourselves. Like so many other parts of the benefits system, that part needs to be modernised.
It is right that the benefits system should reflect the changes that have occurred in society. I understand the attractions of arguments that we should leave things as they are, and appreciate that some people believe that that would be in the best interests of those who depend on the benefits system. However, if we continue paying benefits when real needs have moved elsewhere, it will sap confidence in the system and undermine it. In the long run, those who depend on the system are those who will lose from such an approach.
Thus, for those who believe in the benefits system—as the Government do—modernisation is so important.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman mentioned those who are dependent on the system. In the debate on the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, he said that those who were on contributory benefits were part of dependency. Does he stand by that statement?

Mr. Timms: I recall making no such statement, but if the hon. Gentleman will remind me of the context in which he thinks I made it, I shall most emphatically stand by it. If he will give me the reference, I shall be glad to do just that.
For those who believe in the benefits system, as we do, and in the potential of publicly delivered welfare to improve people's circumstances in a decent and dignified manner, modernisation is vital. Things do not stand still, and it does absolutely no favours to those who depend on the benefits system to behave as if nothing had changed. If we are spending benefits cash to meet yesterday's needs rather than today's, we are weakening the system and damaging the interests of those who look to the system for support. If we insisted on dealing only with yesterday's needs, we would be unable to meet today's needs, let alone tomorrow's.

Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister telling us that no one today is widowed, not in a job and unlikely to find one for some time, or traumatically affected by bereavement?

Mr. Timms: I am saying that the circumstances in our society are radically different from those that prevailed when the existing system was introduced. We need to bring the system up to date to reflect the huge changes that have occurred over the past 50 years.
There are big new demands on the welfare system that must be addressed, such as the needs of bereaved fathers who were dependent on the income of their partners. We shall make sure that the necessary capacity is available so that we do not let people down.

Mr. Rendel: I thank the Minister for giving way again so quickly. Is he seriously saying that he needs to make £600 million worth of cuts in order to pay for £100 million worth of enhancement?

Mr. Timms: I shall come in a moment to the financial consequences of the changes that we are making, but it is

a feature of the changes to bereavement benefits that there will be additional spending in the early years to meet the new needs that we are addressing. The savings to which the hon. Gentleman referred will take a long time to materialise, so, on that front, his point is misleading. There will be an additional £140 million in the first year and about £100 million extra in the following year. So there will be substantial extra spending in the early years to meet the new additional needs that will be picked up.
The benefits system needs to reflect the changes in our society. If it does not, the system will be weakened and people who depend on it to provide security will be the losers. We will not allow that to happen. We are absolutely determined to rebuild our welfare system, and to restore public confidence in it and public support for it. That is our goal and we will achieve it.
Society has changed but the system has not. It ignores the fact that married women are far more likely to be financially independent and that flourishing public-private partnerships have developed in this area of welfare provision. Two thirds of working-age women are in work, as are seven out of 10 married women. That is nearly as large a proportion as the proportion of married men in work. The picture is therefore completely different from when the existing system was originally designed. Today, 47 per cent. of widows have occupational pension income. It is a condition of contracting out from SERPS that the SERPS element of an occupational pension offers a 50 per cent. survivor's pension. The system needs to be modernised accordingly.
The current scheme fails on a range of fronts. First, and above all, it gives no help to bereaved husbands, even when they have children to care for. That is a scandal and we are putting it right. Secondly, it no longer provides enough help with the immediate costs of bereavement. It continues to provide most help to those least likely to be in need of it. Currently, 75 per cent. of expenditure on widows benefit goes to the more numerous widows without dependants, while 35,000 widows receive nothing at all because their income support is reduced, pound for pound, by the amount of widows benefit that they receive.
The system does not recognise the enormous changes that have taken place in welfare provision. Many families now make their own provision for bereavement through occupational pension schemes and life insurance policies.
Our reformed system will for the first time treat men and women equally and will focus resources where they are needed most. We are not simply extending the old system of widows benefits to widowers. We have re-examined it in the light of our principles for reform and made improvements to bring it up to date.

Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that things have changed, but widowhood is still a dreadful experience and the time that it takes to recover from it has not changed in the past 50 years. The six-month limit is crucial. The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who is Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, challenged the Minister on that limit in the early hours of the morning during Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Is the Minister saying that widows can now cope better with bereavement? Surely the situation has not changed and widows should not be forced back into the labour market so soon.

Mr. Timms: I shall come to that point in a moment. It is a question of balance and we believe that we have


made the right judgment. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious, because the bereavement benefit system is not to do with the scale of someone's shock and their difficulty in coming to terms with bereavement or the undoubtedly enormous trauma involved. It is about giving people a breathing space after they lose income from someone on whom they were dependent. We have decided that six months is the right period to give that opportunity.
We will give immediate support on bereavement by introducing the bereavement payment—a tax-free lump sum of £2,000. That is double the value of the current widows payment. Some 15,000 men widowed every year will benefit from that for the first time and 40,000 new widows every year will get £1,000 more than they receive under the existing system.
We also intend to introduce two new contributory, non-means-tested benefits: widowed parents allowance and bereavement allowance. They will also be available to both widowers and widows. Widowed parents allowance will follow the rules that currently apply to widowed mothers allowance and will be calculated in the same way, but it will also be paid to widowed fathers, who are unfairly excluded at present. The new benefit will apply not only to new widows and widowers, but also to fathers who have already been widowed, if they meet the qualifying conditions. In total, around 25,000 widowers will benefit in the first year. That is a substantial improvement that has been widely welcomed. Bereavement allowance will be paid for six months following a bereavement, at the rate of the current widows pension.
I stress again that the benefits are contributory, not means-tested—there has been some mischief and misinformation about that—but they are time-limited. It would not be right to go on paying a widows pension for life to those who could be earning a decent living or who have large alternative forms of income. I shall deal in a moment with the period for which they will last.
Financial support is important in the period immediately after the loss of a husband or wife.

Mr. Pickles: I am curious about what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said that widows benefits should not be paid for life. Can he tell me a time in our history when they were paid for life, assuming the beneficiary did not die suddenly and tragically before retirement age?

Mr. Timms: It has always been paid up to retirement. We are saying that that is no longer appropriate and does not reflect the reality of people's circumstances now.
Financial support is important in the period immediately after bereavement. Bereavement allowance will provide support in those vital six months. It will give people the breathing space that they need before they are in a position to support themselves by returning to work or through other income. That important breathing space allows people to come to terms with the emotional and practical financial upheaval caused by the loss of a spouse. However, we do not think that it would be right for younger widows and widowers, many of whom will already have regular employment, to assume a lifetime of dependency.
Another aspect of the current situation that I have not mentioned is that 98 per cent. of married women have had a job. Even if they are not currently employed, they have

a history of work. Our comprehensive welfare-to-work programme offers a range of support, including advice on employment, training and benefits, to aid a person's return to work. It must be right and beneficial to ensure that a person can be put in touch with that support at the earlier stage of six months rather than delaying it for a year or more.
It is often in people's interests to get back into the labour market as soon as possible. We want men and women to be financially independent while they are of working age and in retirement. We are committed to removing the barriers to work and ensuring that work pays. Our reforms will refocus expenditure, concentrating the help that is available where and when it is most needed. That means meeting immediate needs at the point of bereavement and focusing on children and families. We want to balance sensitivity to the needs of people who have been recently bereaved with a recognition that, after a period of readjustment, those who are able to support themselves should do so.
It has been suggested that bereavement allowance should be paid for a significantly longer period, with the cost offset against the expected savings. However, the savings of £500 million that we have published are for the long term—they are expected in 2020. We shall be spending around £100 million extra in each of the first couple of years following the introduction of the new scheme. Paying bereavement allowance for a longer period would add substantially to those costs. It would not be a responsible use of resources to pay a long-term benefit to widows and widowers—without dependent children—who could be earning a decent living or who may well have a substantial income from an occupational pension.
I want to underline again the fact that, as we have always said, existing widows will not be affected by the new arrangements. We shall ensure that the existing arrangements continue to apply to all who are currently entitled to widows benefits. The new scheme will ensure that help is focused on those with the greatest need at the time of that need, with a weekly benefit for widowed fathers and widowed mothers giving long-term help with the extra costs of bringing up children, and a transitional benefit for widowed people over 45 and without dependent children, to permit a breathing space to help them to adjust to their new circumstances.
The hon. Member for Newbury spent a considerable amount of his speech expressing concerns about the change to the amount of SERPS that can be inherited from a spouse. That change was brought in by the previous Government in 1986. The change was designed to bring SERPS into line with occupational pension schemes, in which it has been the norm to pay a widow only half the spouse's pension rights.
That change was not published before 1996. A great deal of concern has been expressed to me here and in letters by hon. Members on both sides who want to know why. I wish I knew. The then Minister told the Standing Committee in 1986 that there would be a major publicity campaign about the changes. Not only was there no publicity campaign; the Benefits Agency leaflets did not


refer to the changes for 10 years, until 1996. That should clearly not have happened. As in so many other areas, we are having to clear up the mess that we have inherited.

Mr. David Heath: What was the position of the then official Opposition on the measure when it was introduced?

Mr. Timms: The measure was opposed in 1986, 14 years ago. We are now considering how to deal with the enormous difficulties that we have picked up as a result of those changes not being publicised at the time they should have been. As the then Minister said, there should have been a major publicity campaign at the time to make people aware of them. That was not done, and it led to the problems that we now face.
I have said that anyone who can show that they have been mis-advised and, as a consequence, have taken action to their own financial detriment, will be entitled to compensation. A large number of people may be affected and we are considering carefully how best to resolve the matter. The ombudsman is also considering a sample of cases. We will make an announcement in due course, in good time for April next year when the change is due to take effect.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Minister said that, where it could be shown that someone had taken action, he would be entitled to compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) pointed out that it is people who have not taken action who have been lulled into a false sense of security. Can the Minister give some assurance that those people, the real victims, will be compensated?

Mr. Timms: If, for example, people have received advice by telephone, we shall take that into account. If what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me is that people may have received advice—for example, over the telephone—on the basis of which they decided not to do something that they would otherwise have done, then they, too, will have a case for compensation. However, this is an exceedingly complex and large issue which requires careful consideration by the Government. That consideration is currently being given and we shall make an announcement in due course.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend says. I, like other hon. Members, have received letters from constituents on the subject. It is obviously a serious issue. However, are not the Government dealing with the matter in a more responsible way than the Liberal Democrats? When I asked how they would pay for a 10-year delay, they said that it was up to the Government to sort that out. But this is the same party that wants to put 1p on income tax to fund its education priorities. That seems like double standards to me.

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is being kind. I do not know about double standards—I would say treble or quadruple standards.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Quintuple standards.

Mr. Timms: Indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is right to say that the Liberal Democrats' proposals are entirely free of any sense of responsibility.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: In view of the Liberal Democrats' interest today in the fact that the matter has not been mentioned since 1986, does my hon. Friend know whether the Liberal Democrats have mentioned it since 1986?

Mr. Timms: No, my impression is that they have not mentioned it until these last few months. My hon. Friend makes a telling point.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has been his customary courteous self today. One has become accustomed in debates such as this for Ministers to read their brief, not make important announcements. Today, however, the Minister has made an important announcement about telephone claims. How much proof will be required? Will an applicant's word that he telephoned in 1987 or 1988 be sufficient, or will a telephone bill have to be produced?

Mr. Timms: I advise the hon. Gentleman to be patient. As I have said, we shall make a fuller announcement on these matters in due course and as soon as we can.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman seemed to make a double announcement, one of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), concerning the proof that would be needed that a telephone call had been made. That is an interesting concept. I imagine that almost everyone involved could say that they had made a telephone call and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. But what happens if people say that they did not take any action? Most people, if they were reassured, will not have taken any action. Will they all receive compensation?

Mr. Timms: My advice to the hon. Gentleman is the same as to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar—to wait for the announcement that we will make as soon as we are in a position to do so. The hon. Gentleman's point may well provide him with an explanation of why it is necessary to take some time over the details of the matter to ensure, as we will, that we get it right.
It is right, in meeting the needs of bereaved men for the first time, and in making a priority, as we are doing right across government, of the needs of children—in this case through the widowed parents allowance—that we should also take the opportunity to bring bereavement benefits up to date and modernise the circumstances in which they are paid. That is what we are doing, and I urge the House to support the proposals that are in the Bill.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I commiserate with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on the mistake in the drafting of the motion. He blamed the Whips Office, but if any trade union operates in this building it is that of the Whips. I shall watch for the number of times that the hon. Gentleman is slipped over the next few months.
It is also a great pleasure to follow the Minister. He spoke fluently and, in commemoration of the day and in honour of the Liberal Democrats, he is wearing a yellow tie. I also commend him on his bravery. His announcement concerning telephone calls is important. For him to say that, if people did nothing, they may well have a claim is an important announcement.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: In a moment.
Not many hon. Members, save the Chancellor, have the opportunity to commit the Government to a potential £5 billion of expenditure. I congratulate the Minister on doing so. That shows real courage. I hope that he has a peaceful weekend in consequence, particularly as the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who is seeking to intervene, criticised the Liberal Democrats for suggesting such a thing. I trust that he will now apologise to the hon. Member for Newbury.

Mr. Twigg: When will the hon. Gentleman apologise for the current debacle? Will he apologise now on behalf of the Conservative party when it was in government?

Mr. Pickles: I have apologised from the Dispatch Box on a couple of occasions. Hon. Members should accept responsibility for what happens. The fact that the publicity campaign did not take place is a disgrace. I do not think for one moment that Ministers in the Department of Social Security prevented that from happening; nor do I suppose for a moment that the Minister would issue inaccurate information. At the beginning of this year, the Department issued a memo on pensions dated 12 January. It contains no instruction to give people the right information. That is an interesting date, because I received a letter on the same day giving inaccurate information.
Too often in politics, people are not prepared to accept responsibility. This situation arose when I was chairman of education for Bradford metropolitan district council and before the Minister entered the House, but I accept responsibility, as must we all. We must all find ways to deal with such matters. The Minister, in the undertaking that he has just given, and in terms of the ombudsman's report, will go some way towards doing so. I look forward to the Chancellor honouring the hon. Gentleman's pledge today. I hope that he will support him in that. It is a brave thing to come before one's Back Benchers and defy their wishes.
The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which largely dealt with these matters, is now in another place. We spent many hours debating the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We hoped to receive some explanation of why the Government are abandoning a proportion of widows, but we have received no explanation in Committee, on Report or today. The Government have deliberately picked on a group of women who are unaware of their fate. The great advantage for the Government is that no one can identify the victims. The women are unaware—they are currently in a marriage, and they have a reasonable expectation of a long and happy marriage. Sadly, fate will deny them that. From a spin point of view, that is marvellous. There is no opposition, because no one can point out that they will lose from it. However, those women will have to face

not only the loss of a spouse, but the sudden realisation that their Government will abandon them at their time of greatest need.
The proposal offers the veneer of change under the cover of sexual equality. The Government are right to say that times are changing. Widows pensions were introduced in 1925 when the man was the main breadwinner. In 1999, things are changing—but they are not changing that fast. I welcome the fact that there are more women in the work force, and their increasing role, but these are early days.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) put it well on Report when she said:
It will not do for Ministers to wrap it up in spurious feminism, claiming that the world has changed, women have moved on, women all work and they do not need the present provision. The world has not changed that much and the majority of women, particularly working-class women, still earn less than the majority of men.
The hon. Lady was absolutely right about "spurious feminism". The Government put on a veneer of sexual equality. They are using widows as the battering ram of social change, rather than as a reflection of social change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), from a sedentary position, does not show sufficient compassion. Surely it makes sense to carry out such a measure once matters have changed, rather than to use it as a battering ram to make the change.
Nobody is fooled by the veneer, which is entirely transparent. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said in the same debate:
Many women who will be affected by the changes will not have had jobs, will not have qualifications and will find it impossible to find employment.
Unlike other matters in the welfare budget generally, the number of widows is falling. It fell by 30 per cent. between 1983 and 1997. This is simply a cost-cutting measure to save £600 million of money which, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, husbands have paid in over many years in the reasonable expectation that the Government would honour their pledges. This £600 million will force widows on to means-tested benefits.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is as gracious as ever, and I am enjoying his flamboyant use of language. Does he accept that focusing resources on families with children will do far more socially than anything that he is now suggesting?

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that what she voted for the other week was the abandonment of widows at their most difficult time. It will ensure that women who perhaps have nursed a husband for many years will suffer. People who have lost a husband by suicide will suffer. In addition, someone who loses a sole child will suffer because of this when they are at their most vulnerable. The Minister is right to say that this is not about compensation for bereavement. It is about giving a breathing space, or providing the thing that the state can offer in those times—a little bit of money to allow women to make sensible decisions.
The Minister said that those on contributory benefits are part of the dependency culture—a point that he repeated on Report. He asked for the reference—it is


column 810. That proposal goes to the heart of the Government. I do not believe that the Minister is an uncaring man, but he does not understand the difference between means-tested and contributory benefits, and the effect of pushing more of society on to means-tested benefits.
I accept that the Minister may not want to take my view on this, so I will simply repeat some of the speeches that have been made by Labour Back Benchers. This matter concerns the famous "something-for-nothing society" speech made by the Prime Minister. The Government believe that widows receiving benefits that their husbands have paid for are getting something for nothing. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put this well in the debate on 17 May:
Given that it is the Prime Minister's wish for welfare to be based on something for something, it is difficult to justify the Government's changes in the provision for widows. We are taking away benefits—contributions towards which may have been made for 30 years—and substituting nothing, which is the exact opposite of what he says he is about.

Kali Mountford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that life on benefits is no fun at all, and that people in employment are significantly better off? Does he accept that those who are willing and able to work will find that the opportunity to work gives them far better opportunities in life than languishing on any benefit, whether contributory or otherwise?

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but those who receive contributory benefits are getting back money that they have paid in. The widows pension has enabled a number of women to receive a sum of money as of right, which has often enabled them to get back to the workplace. That is why only 17 per cent. of widows currently get means-tested benefits. After these proposals are brought in, a great deal more will be forced on to such benefits.

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: I will in a moment. Distinguished as the hon. Member for Newbury is—and as I aspire to be—I fear that we are not going to impress the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). Let us look instead at what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said. She said:
The vast majority of working women are in jobs that pay less than the male average wage. Some have been on very low pay … Some will not have been working at all while raising their families. A woman's family might have left the nest only recently, leaving her on her own."—[Official Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 777–92.]

Mr. Rendel: Even if it is true that living on benefits is less worth while than having a job, is it not also true that living on no benefits at all when one cannot get work is the worst of all possible situations? Taking away the bereavement allowance after six months does not provide an opportunity for work; that opportunity exists anyway.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Widows will be forced further and further down the income scale and will have to sell their property and

personal possessions until they qualify for income support. That will add to the amount being paid to people through means-tested benefits.
There is one vital question: why six months? What is so magical about the figure of six months? We have received much evidence and many statements from various organisations, all saying that six months is wholly inadequate. I recall a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington about the loss of her mother, and I spoke in Committee and on Report about the loss of my mother. I know that one's judgment has not returned six months after that loss, so how much more difficult must it be for someone who has lost a life partner, someone to whom one may have been married for 20, 30 or 40 years?
The Minister said that it is all a question of balance. What is the balance? What are the ingredients of this magical balance? We know that part of the balance is that, if the widow remarries within the six-month period, she loses the bereavement benefit. Who marries within six months of a bereavement? It is odd to put such a provision in primary legislation.
We know of one famous marriage within six months: that of Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude.

Angela Eagle: A dysfunctional family.

Mr. Pickles: I suppose that it is fair to say that the king and queen of Denmark and their eldest son were indeed a dysfunctional family, but why is an entire piece of legislation being put together on the basis of such families? Not all families are the Simpsons or Hamlet's family. You are very well read, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you will recall that Hamlet talked about thrift. He said:
Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral baked meats
Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables.
One might need the provision if it were a matter of 15 years' potential pension—but 26 weeks? Now we know what the balance is that the Minister wants to achieve. At one end of the scale is Queen Gertrude of Denmark and at the other is the spurious feminism referred to by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—a balance between Denmark and Hackney.

Miss Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend may know that I am part Danish. I have recently joined the Anglo-Danish society. On behalf of all my compatriots, I hope that he is not arguing that all Danish families are dysfunctional; I am sure that that was not his intention.

Mr. Pickles: I wish my hon. Friend a long and happy marriage. Much as I love and admire her, she should be reassured that I will not be on the waiting list should anything unforeseen happen.

Mr. Stunell: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to this country? Labour peers have tabled an amendment that would increase the bereavement payment period from six months to 12. Does he agree that it would be good if the Minister could announce that the Government were prepared to accept that amendment?

Mr. Pickles: It would be marvellous. The Minister has had his chance, but I will gladly give way to him if he


wants to make that announcement. Various formulae could be available to extend the period, but we have still not received an explanation of why the period should be six months. On this matter and on the bereavement tax allowance, to which the hon. Member for Newbury referred, we need to know where the Government stand.
Let us consider the plight of war widows. The Government appear to have a cynical attitude to widows. This is a small matter, but I think that it speaks volumes about the Government's attitude. For the purposes of housing benefit, £10 is disregarded from war widows pensions and from war disablement pensions. Some local authorities use their discretion and waive more, or the entire amount. That is as one would expect for the widows of the generation of heroes who gave their lives for their country. It is right that local authorities should act with compassion, but a few stick rigidly to the £10. It is unfair that widows living only a few miles from one another should be treated differently.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), to whom I pay tribute, asked the Prime Minister to review the matter and consider how to achieve some uniformity among local authorities. The Prime Minister said:
I am certainly happy to consider it, but my hon. Friend will know that discussions about the problem have been going on for a considerable time. It is for local authorities ultimately to make their own decisions, but we shall continue to keep the matter under review and under discussion."—[Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 312, c. 950.]
When I heard that commitment, I thought that it was marvellous and I looked forward to some action. I felt that it would be a good test of the Government's and the Prime Minister's sincerity. It is a small matter with small cost implications, and a promise was made to the House from the Dispatch Box.
A year passed and nothing happened. I asked why that was, and the Prime Minister's reply was very different in tone and content to what he had said to the hon. Member for Thurrock. The Prime Minister said:
We have explained constantly that the problem is cost, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he supported a Government who were in power for 18 years and never did that. I appreciate that we now have the responsibility"—
that is a good thing in a Prime Minister—
for those decisions. We have said that we will look at it, and we will do that, but the problem is simply one of cost."—[Official Report, 12 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 315.]
I have checked Hansard carefully, but I could see no reference in the intervening period to any Minister saying that it was a matter of cost. I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can say that the Government have consistently said that cost was the issue. I concede that the previous Government did not increase the disregard, but a promise is a promise.
I tried twice more. I asked the Leader of the House about the issue at business questions on 13 May and I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 24 May. He told me that it was a matter for the discretion of local authorities. I already knew that. Indeed, the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Thurrock that a year ago. What happened to the review of the situation? I submitted a written question, which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security who is in her place. I asked her:
how many local authorities (a) do and (b) do not disregard the whole amount of war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions".

I also asked what the total cost would be. She replied:
The additional cost to central Government of a full disregard … is estimated to be in the region of £70 million".—[Official Report, 20 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 429–30.]
She also said that information on the use of discretion by local authorities could not be provided because of the "disproportionate cost".
The sum of £70 million is a full £10 million less than the Government spend annually on publicity. They could find £70 million by reducing the number of leaflets that they produce. [Interruption.] The Government Whip appears to look favourably on that idea. The sad fact is that the number qualifying for the benefit falls every year, because many of them are in their 60s, 70s or 80s so the Exchequer would not have to make a large commitment.
The Under-Secretary did not know which local authorities used their discretion. How then can the Prime Minister say it is a matter of cost? He does not know what the cost would be. However, for the cost of a telephone call, I have been able to obtain that information, courtesy of the British Legion. Only 10 authorities stick rigidly to the £10 disregard. I shall list them for the Under-Secretary's information—Chester-le-Street district council, Easington district council, Gateshead metropolitan borough council, Manchester city council, North Tyneside metropolitan borough council, Norwich city council, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, South Tyneside metropolitan borough council, the City of Sunderland metropolitan district council and Wear Valley district council. They are all Labour authorities. Another 31 authorities apply less than a 100 per cent. disregard. If that is the sum total of the problem, the figure of £70 million might be a smidgen on the high side.
The Prime Minister made a promise and then forgot about it. He stonewalled a year ago and Ministers have stonewalled since, and we are no further on. If the Government are not prepared to concede on an issue so small and insignificant, what chance have we of extracting any concessions in the House of Lords?
What will happen next? I can find no better way to express that than to use the words of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). In a final appeal to the Government to change their mind he said:
I appeal to them once again—in friendship and fraternity—to stop attacking that group"—
widows—
and, when they have an opportunity in the future, to find some way of being more generous to them."—[Official Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 784.]
What an appalling indictment of the Government that a Labour Back Bencher has to urge them to stop attacking widows. If Conservative Members can make a speech on an issue based on criticisms from disgruntled Back Benchers and squirming Ministers, the Government's policy must be deeply flawed. They should reverse that policy and, in the words of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South "stop attacking" widows.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The Government's proposals to ensure that widows and widowers receive significant help when they most need it is to be applauded. The present provision that we inherited failed to provide the right amount of help at the right time. It is the time shortly after a bereavement, when distress is


coupled with extra cost, that needs are at their peak and when help is required. I therefore support the Government's proposal for a doubling of the immediate help through the bereavement payment because that will be of great assistance at the time when it is most needed. Also important is the fact that it will be paid to widowers as well as widows.
However, neither the present provision nor the Government's proposals deal with the small group of widows who face perilous financial loss at a time when the enormity of their situation is at its worst. I speak of those recent widows who receive the support of widowed mothers allowance and then lose their child.
The current provisions rightly provide significant support for young mothers—those under 45—who have children to support at the time of their husband's death. Such support continues until the child ends full-time education and then, depending on the age of the widow, a widows pension may be claimed or, if the widow is under 45, the provision ends. However, the changes can be planned for, as there is some certainty about when the child will leave the nest.
There are some widows, however—no doubt, a very small number—who suffer grievous financial and personal loss when they suffer not only the loss of a spouse but the subsequent death of a child. Such a tragedy befell my constituent, Mrs. Norma Haigh.
Mrs. Haigh was just 40 when her husband died and she was granted widowed mothers allowance. Up until earlier this year, with a part-time job from which she brought in £136 per week and the widowed mothers allowance amounting to £103 and child benefit of £11, she was able to support herself and her 16-year-old daughter, Rachel, albeit not to the same standard as if her husband had lived. Mrs. Haigh had an older son in the family who had completed full-time education but who unfortunately was out of work. He at least had the stability of a home in which to live following the death of his father.
On 1 January, Rachel was rushed to hospital and died in the operating theatre in tragic circumstances. No one could have expected that otherwise healthy child to have died in that way. My constituent was distraught following the death of her husband and that second tragedy and was too ill to return to work full time. She did manage to work for 15 hours a week, but, in consequence, her income was reduced to £54. Her widowed mothers allowance of £103 and child benefit of £11 ceased on the very day of her daughter's death. Having had an income of more than £250 a week, she was thus reduced at the time of her greatest need to an income of just £54. There was no provision for the funeral expenses or for the extra help needed at such a time. The previous Government's provisions did not cover that tragic circumstance. I am not suggesting that the previous Government intended to deny help to this small minority of needy individuals, but I am absolutely sure that the present Government would not wish for that small but needy group to be left without support.
I am asking not for compensation for bereavement but for practical and immediate help in such tragic circumstances. In particular, I have two requests to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, will he ensure that, when such situations arise—when either a mother or,

now, a father is left with a double bereavement such as I have described—there should be an immediate bereavement payment, such as is paid under the new provisions, to assist with the funeral expenses? Secondly, will he ensure that there is a period of protection of perhaps six months from the loss of the widowed parents allowance to help overcome the immediate trauma?
A period of six months would probably be sufficient, as people's circumstances change while they adjust to bereavement. Because of the rarity of the situation, the costs to the Exchequer would be minimal; but, to the affected parent, the assistance may just make life worth living.
It is too late to help Mrs. Haigh, but I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's assurance that my requests will be taken seriously and that proposals will be made to help others in such tragic circumstances in the future.

Mr. David Heath: I shall make a brief contribution to what has been an interesting debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for the way in which he introduced the debate and ensured that it covered a wide spectrum of issues.
We are not holding the Government to account for one specific action in relation to widows, but we are worried about the cumulative effect of many different aspects of Government policy. When taken together, they make life very difficult for a particular group of people who often are not best equipped, either financially or emotionally after a bereavement, to make good the loss.
We do not damn the Government's intentions. The Government, when formulating social security policy, probably do not intend to be discriminatory against widows or any other group. Nor do we wish to damn all the Government's initiatives in that regard. We support many of them, and the extension of existing provision to include widowers is especially welcome, although we might quibble about its precise terms. We also welcome the promised additional support for carers although, given that the arrangements are not yet in place, it is stretching the point somewhat to claim that that is evidence of the Government's generous support for widows. We are entitled to wait until those arrangements are implemented before we hang out the flags.
The Government seem to have a blind spot in this matter, which is why the debate is so important. We must make it clear to those of our constituents who are widows or widowers that they are not forgotten, and that they are an important group whom we shall support in our arguments today.
It is rare for me to agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), and spurious feminism is the last thing in the world of which the Conservative party could be accused. However, the hon. Gentleman had a case when he identified some wishful thinking in the Government's policy of social evolution rather than revolution. That evolution is under way, but it is not complete. The present sociological and demographic position is that many widows are not given the independent means and employment prospects that we want them to have. The truth is that they have often been placed at a disadvantage throughout their lives by the


social conditions in which they have lived, and that they are disadvantaged now by the arrangements governing what happens after the death of a spouse.
I wish to concentrate on the changes to SERPS and the undoubted mis-selling of pensions using terms that were anything but precise. That is a Government responsibility and a matter of enormous consequence to constituents. I have received very many letters on that subject. I shall not read them out, but I will name some of my correspondents. They include Mr. Deasington of Queen Camel, Mr. Michael of Bower Hinton, Mr. Smith of Milborne Port, Mr. Brosnan of Frome, Mrs. Stonell of Frome and Mr. Cochran of Henstridge.
The people who wrote used almost exactly the same terms, and it is interesting that most of them are men—husbands worried about what will happen to their wives after they die. The letters share one of two emotions: either devastation at the unpicking, through no fault of their own, of what the writers had arranged on their spouses' behalf; or anger at the degree to which they had been misled, right up to a few weeks ago, by the advice that they had received.
People often make SERPS contributions over a lifetime. The men who wrote to me expected that those contributions would mean that, after their demise, the arrangements for their spouses would be satisfactory. That expectation has now been dashed. They feel that the Government have reneged on what amounted to a genuine contract.
I feel sympathy for Ministers, because clearly this matter is not of their doing. The fault lies with the previous Government, who should have made the appropriate dispositions at the time and should have maintained them in the intervening years. However, that does not alter the facts facing the people who write to hon. Members of all parties. They are not interested in where the fault lies. Their problem is that, through no fault of their own, they have been left in an impossible position. They made the simple mistake of trusting the Government, and assuming that advice from the Department of Social Security was good. That advice was not good.
The problem of SERPS for widows is especially difficult. The demographic information shows that widows are among the poorest pensioners, as the relevant statistics prove. Many widows do not take up their income support entitlement. We may wish that they did and that the mechanisms were better at encouraging them to do so, but the fact is that they do not. Women tend, in general, to have lower pension entitlements than men—another example of the disadvantage that widows suffer. In addition, people who work under the SERPS system tend to have lower lifetime earnings and are therefore the least able to cope with the financial shock that has been described.
I intervened on the Minister of State's speech to ask about the position of the Labour party in 1986, when it was in opposition. I was not trying to make some clever debating point. I do not expect nothing to have changed over such a period, nor that members of the Government should adopt exactly the same position on every matter as they did in 1986. However, I would have thought that, when the Government came to power, Ministers would have talked to civil servants in the Department of Social Security about that Department's prospects. I should have

expected them to realise that a measure that they had opposed in opposition—and opposed virulently, as the contemporary remarks of the Leader of the House show—was still waiting to be implemented. If Ministers did not realise that when they came into government, civil servants certainly should have known it and should have included it in the hand-over brief. They should carefully have flagged up the fact that a provision yet to be implemented had been opposed, giving Ministers a chance to reconsider it.
Of course, nothing happened. There was no decision to reverse the policy, which may have been impracticable in any event. More importantly, it was not drawn to Ministers' attention that no publicity had been given to the proposal. It is absurd that people were incorrectly advised. The mistake, far from being rectified, was amplified after the Government came into office.

Mr. Rendel: Perhaps when she winds up the debate, the Minister will tell us when her departmental team was told that incorrect information had been given.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Either Ministers were told and were negligent, or the civil service has made an appalling error of judgment. The Government have ended up implementing a measure to which they were strongly opposed, and it would be a dereliction of duty in the civil service if that fact had not been brought to Ministers' attention.
All that is history, and we must deal with what is happening now. People have been placed in a difficult financial position. The Minister made the perverse suggestion that people who have suffered real hardship must establish that they were misled, and that they consequently made the wrong decision. I do not know what will happen to those who were misled, but took the right decision. Is the test cumulative or single? The test is perverse. Anyone who was wrongly informed by a Department of Government has been misled. It matters not what process of mind people went through. If they were told something wrong, they were misled, and the Department should be big enough to say so.
The Minister has put a gloss on the situation by saying that a phone call is sufficient evidence of someone's having been misled, even where there is no documentary proof. Inaction is just as adequate as action as a proof of wrong action. A person need merely say that he was telephoned, and did nothing more. That will be enough proof to win compensation. That is nonsense, and if the Minister does not realise on reflection that it is nonsense, someone else will realise it for him.
It would be far better to deal with problems at source, and fairest to take proper measures to extend the period of introduction to mitigate them. If that is not done, both the Department's culpability and the size of damages will have to be established, and it might cost the Government more to act in that way than to extend the period. Alternatively, a clear system must be developed to identify cases in which people were let down. Leaving it to the ombudsman would be another dereliction of duty. The Government appear to feel that it is all too difficult for them, so someone else must decide. "See you in court," they seem to be saying. A responsible Government dealing with people who have taken decisions on the best available advice would surely think it right to pre-empt the ombudsman and the courts by doing the right thing from the start.
I question the difference between the approach taken to this issue and that taken on the mis-selling of private pensions. There is a cost to the Exchequer, and I have the greatest of sympathy for Ministers. However, they must take this matter seriously. To the suggestion that the Liberal Democrats should somehow have warned people, I can say only that had we been running the Department of Social Security, we would have done so. It so happens that that responsibility fell to the Conservatives for a long time and has fallen for the past couple of years to Labour Ministers.
We achieve nothing by laying blame. We must do right by widows who are suffering and by husbands who are worried sick about the provision that they thought that they had made, and that they must now make again. It is cruel that elderly gentlemen have been left not knowing which way to turn. I implore the Government to take this matter seriously, and to do all that they can to mitigate a mistake that is not their own, but that they have not yet sought to repair.
The Minister of State is a decent chap—I often travel home with him on the tube, and I know that he would not intend widows to suffer. I hope that he will back his intentions with the right action.

Kali Mountford: I apologise to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for missing his speech. He and I have exchanged views during the course of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, so I have had the benefit in the past of the full range of his views.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) gave us a vision of a widow, wrapped in her weeds, covered in a black shawl, shuffling about and unable to raise her head for want of self-esteem or dignity. The hon. Gentleman should know that times have moved on. The picture that he painted did no credit to him or to widows. We ought to recognise that widows have reached a dreadful time of life—I can imagine few things more terrible than the loss of a spouse—but the point is that it is the loss of the spouse that causes deep grief, not just the loss of a husband.
The hon. Gentleman might have recognised that benefits should be extended to men as well as women, not out of some spurious feminism and not even out of simple fairness, but because both men and women grieve. I do not know how men have carried on until now. Those who have managed to set aside grief to go off to work have done so because they had to. I have never seen a difference in the ability of men or women to cope with grief, which is equally deep, whether the deceased is a husband, a wife or a child. The quality of grief does not vary according to gender.
To suggest that extending benefits to men is spurious feminism is both wrong and unfair, particularly to fathers who must support their children. Many fathers choose to continue to work, but others do not. Mothers make similar choices in the interests of their families. The Government are right to restructure benefits to help families at a time of great need.
I cannot imagine that anyone could offer me a sum of money—even £50,000 a week—that would ameliorate my grief. There is no cost to grief, but there is a cost to living.

The argument is why a period of six months has been chosen rather than a year or two years, but we have to look at everything on balance. We do not argue that, after six months, the grief will suddenly end.
Eight years ago, I lost a grandchild. I grieve for him still. I imagine that I shall grieve for the rest of my life, but I am not incapable of working and never have been. Nor is my daughter, who returned to work fairly quickly after the terrible, grievous loss of her first child. We cannot put a defined time limit on grief, but benefits are not about compensating for grief. They are about giving a period of sanctuary, but then life goes on and it must go on. It is right for Governments to consider how they can best help people through a period of distress in their life. I know from my family, friends and neighbours, and my own life that dignity comes from work and that it can provide a way of returning to life.
I do not argue that every woman or man is capable of going back to work instantly after the grievous loss of their spouse. They may still be grieving and their grief may cause them mental ill health, for which they will receive support. Even Liberal Democrat Members have failed to recognise that, if the bereaved person does not have children, when the allowance comes to an end, a range of other benefits will be available. They are available to all people who are ill or seek to retrain for work. People are not left unsupported in British society today.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar back in his seat. I hope that he will read my remarks about widows and recognise that they are not the women wrapped up in shawls whom he seemed to describe. I am glad to have the chance to put that point directly to him. I am grateful to him for recognising the terrible mistake of the Government whom he supported. Much has been made by Members on both Opposition Benches of what happened with SERPS in 1986. It was gracious of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to accept responsibility, even though he was not a Member of the House at that time. It makes a pleasant change.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made the point that we had to look at the situation that we were now in, not the one that we would have wished to be in or imagined that we were in. We inherited the most appalling mess, and that is why I am grateful for the apology. That appalling mess is such that the ombudsman is investigating it. It would be foolish and wrong for any Government to come in and say, "Here we are. We are going to save the day without looking closely at the detail." The detail is so complex that it may take a little while to sort out. It would be a grave mistake to rush it.
It occurred to me during the debate that people might say that they telephoned and were given advice. If they telephoned from a telephone box, I have no idea how they can prove that they made the call. The mess will be difficult to unpick. I do not seek to cast blame here, there and everywhere; that would not help the situation. The fact is that the matter has to be put right. I have no idea what the ombudsman's report will look like; I await it with interest. People feel let down by what has happened to them. People have made plans according to the advice that they were given. It behoves the Government to look closely at how that can be put right. To pretend that we can come along 14 years later with an instant solution would do no one any service.
Simply to say, "We do not blame you because you were not in government then, but you have to put it right and therefore it is your fault," does not take us any further forward. The way forward is what the Government are doing—namely, examining closely what happened and seeing whether there are lessons for the future and what, if anything, can properly be proposed to people who have lost out as a result of a mistake that was made 14 years ago in not giving out information.
Some comments were made about letters written in January to the Department about someone's entitlement on a particular day. My experience of Government Departments is that, when they consider a potential claim, they consider the day on which that claim might be made, which is the day on which it is proposed. Someone's entitlement may be six months down the line.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is courteous in giving way. I saw her name on the Annunciator screen so I came in to listen to her. She is doing well, but we are talking about 12 January. Information had gone out, instructions had gone out, everyone knew that there was a problem, and hon. Members were holding debates on the matter, but still the information had not got through to the Department. I cannot believe that we can run a Department on the basis of reading newspapers, but anyone who read a newspaper would have known. It is an indictment that the information was not passed down and that, on 12 June when a memorandum had gone out, it still had not told people in the Department to correct the mistakes.

Kali Mountford: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman was so interested in what I had to say, but I would be more impressed if he did not try to use a tiny fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. It is extraordinary to pretend that the mistake is the responsibility of this Government when his Government introduced the procedures and I am surprised that he even attempted to do so.
Time is pressing, so I will simply say that the process that is in place now is the only one that can possibly work. The hon. Gentleman smiles at that, but I think that the process is right. I hope that lessons are learned for the future and that pensioners who feel aggrieved will have their concerns met by this Government.

Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) has made a thoughtful speech in this important debate on an important issue, but she misses the point about what happens after six months. We are not saying that all financial support stops then. The significance of the six-month threshold is that it is when pressure starts to be applied to a widow. After six months, she ceases to be entitled unconditionally to what was previously the widows pension and will become the bereavement allowance. At that point, she receives only benefits conditional on actively seeking work and walking through the infamous single gateway. In other words, from the day of bereavement, a clock starts ticking and the widow knows that, six months down the line, pressure will be applied.
Widows will vary in their experience and circumstances of bereavement. A balance has to be struck, but we have been given no justification for the six-month threshold.

It is another arbitrary assertion. I dare say that the pressure for the six-month threshold came not from Richmond house but from the Treasury 30 yd over the road. The balance that had to be struck was between what the Chancellor would let the DSS get away with and the needs of widows. What research has been done into the experiences and needs of widows and when they feel ready to look for work? I would love to know what evidence there is. Or is it just arbitrary or Treasury pressure?
The phrase "By their deeds ye shall know them" will be well known to hon. Members. New Labour has reconstructed the division between the deserving and the undeserving poor. The deserving poor are elderly or poor pensioners and the severely disabled. None of us would query that. Who are the undeserving? The Government have attacked lone parents and the incapacitated, but who would ever have thought that widows would constitute the undeserving poor? That is the group from whom they are now taking half a billion pounds. What is the great crime that widows have committed that the Government need to take half a billion pounds from them? It is that they have lost their husbands. That makes them undeserving under new Labour.
Much mention has been made of what the Government are doing for pensioners and carers. We have heard mention of the so-called minimum income guarantee. I offer my hon. Friends a guide to new Labour-speak. When a new name is given to something, it always means precisely the opposite. Therefore, the Bill to clamp down on information getting out is known as the Freedom of Information Bill, and the Bill to abolish legal aid is called the Access to Justice Bill; and the money to which 500,000 people are entitled but which they will not get is called a guaranteed minimum income. The Government's fig leaf is that they will help poor people through the guaranteed minimum income but, unlike the contributory benefits that they are cutting, the means-tested benefits are not guaranteed and will miss many of the most vulnerable. They have no defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke passionately about the attack on widows through the cuts in SERPS. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out some of the absurdities of the Government's approach. That highlighted an interesting benefits policy issue. Many elderly men are distressed about what will happen because, next April, the widows pension will not be phased down but slashed. It will fall by half, overnight.
While it is Government policy to phase the increased retirement age for women by six months at a time over a decade, this cut is keenly felt—Ministers do not realise this—because, although there is allegedly 15 years' notice, the 50 per cent. pensions cut will happen with dramatic suddenness. There was no notice and people were never told, so they feel angry about the sudden halving of their widows' prospective income. None of us would accept the threat of such a prospect. That is why there is anger and why we need action.
We have touched often on the Government's benefit changes that are an attack on widows, but several other things in our motion have not been touched on. The first is an acute problem for widows: the restriction of council tax benefit. The Conservatives propose that someone who lives in a property above band E—a big house or a house in London—should get only as much council tax benefit


as they would if they lived in a band E property. The Conservatives proposed that for everyone. The Government backed down on their proposal following pressure from the Liberal Democrats and others. [Interruption.] Labour Members snort; I am not sure whether that is parliamentary. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury sat on the Committee that considered the regulation that would have introduced their proposal. We opposed it and voted against it. London Labour Members expressed their concern. The Government forced it through with their loyal Back Benchers but, after that debate, the Government rightly gave in to our pressure. That is a statement of fact.
The Government have protected existing recipients but new widows—widowhood can strike at any time—who live in properties above band E will find that council tax will be paid only up to band E equivalent. Why does that matter? Take a married couple who live in a large house and whose two or three children leave home for university and are no longer part of the benefit unit. The couple still live in a large or high-value home. If the husband dies, the widow, as well as coping with everything else, will find that the Government are saying that she lives in too big a house. That is the implication of the restriction to band E. The Government are saying that such people should trade down. They will only pay band E benefit because those people should not be living in such a big house. That is an extraordinary thing to say to people who have just been widowed. Not only are they being told that in six months they will have to get on their bikes and look for jobs, but, from now, day 1, they are to be told that they are living in too big a house. If they are on income support, they will have to find the shortfall in the council tax bill out of their basic income support—the poverty line that is supposed to be for food and clothing. How can that be acceptable?
I asked the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), a written question last week about how many people had been affected so far, because the measure came in only this April. The answer was that the Government do not know. They will know next January. They do not know the effects of their policy on widows. Every widow affected by this—there will be many in London and the south-east where high-value properties are not necessarily huge; we are not talking mansions—will have to make up their council tax out of their basic income support. Because of what the Government have done to local government funding, council tax is rising faster than inflation. It is a serious burden. It is part of the Government's attack on widows.
The amount that the Government are saving through their measures is pathetically small given the scale of Government spending, but it will matter to widows who have to find £2 or £3 a week out of a pension of, say, £60. That is a substantial figure and the Government should reconsider.
It is not just the council tax. What about bereavement tax allowances? That allows widows to keep the tax allowance to which husbands were entitled through marriage in the immediate aftermath of bereavement. The Chancellor abolished that in the Budget but we did not hear about it in the Budget speech. We had to rifle through the Budget press releases. When someone untrustworthy has been to a house, it is necessary to count the silver after

they have gone. When the Chancellor has not mentioned something in his Budget speech, we have to check the press releases to ensure that he has not abolished it. That is the precedent that he has set.
When we found the press release, it was wrong. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, it said that the Government were abolishing the allowance but were doubling the widows payment from £1,000 to £2,000 so that they would all be protected, but that applies only to widows under pension age. Widows above pension age have no offsetting protection. That is another Government attack on widows buried in the small print but it is real money to real people in real need.
It is not only the bereavement tax allowance. What about the dividend tax credit? That is the tax that non-taxpayers have to pay on their share dividends that they would previously have got back. Some 300,000 pensioners who do not pay tax, by definition poorer pensioners, will now pay tax on their dividends. Imagine a couple where the husband has put together a small share portfolio precisely because he wants to provide for his widow should the need arise. The Government say that it has been passed to her, so she must pay tax on it despite her not being well enough off to pay tax. That people are below the tax threshold and that it would cost only a few tens of millions to do something about it does not matter to the Government. In doctrinaire fashion, they will not make any concession because, if they make one, they might have to make another, so widows have to pay.

Mr. Timms: A few tens of millions?

Mr. Webb: My hearing is better than the Minister expected. He says that as though the Liberal Democrats are always spending such sums. Given the chance, we probably would. But, in forecasting its expenditure each year, his Department does not get it right to within £10 million or £100 million but has trouble getting it right to within £1 billion. In that context, £10 million to protect widows is small beer.
I may be mistaken, but my previous professional career reminds me that one of the Government's worst forecasting errors in recent years was in respect of war widows pensions. The Department of Social Security got its forecast wrong on a matter that one would have thought that it was not hard to forecast. If they can say that being a billion out does not matter because they will find the money from somewhere, the tens of millions that do not matter to Government but matter hugely to widows are not chicken feed. The Government need to act.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) has gone because he raised the important problem of widows who suffer further the bereavement of losing a child. That is a dreadful situation that one would wish on no one. He seemed to be unaware that the Government's proposal not only fails to deal with the situation, but makes it worse. Previously, a widow who lost a dependent child would move from widowed mothers allowance to widows pension. [Interruption.] The Minister rightly indicates from a sedentary position that it would depend on age. However, there will be no widows pension if the child dies more than six months after the first bereavement. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye was pointing to a deserving situation that his


Government have made worse. He asked for reassurances from the Minister that it would be tackled but I look forward to them with little anticipation of a satisfactory answer.
We talked about widowers. Understandably, the Minister focused at length on widowers, as I would have in his situation. Denuded of anything to say on widows, I would have talked about widowers at some length—that is perfectly legitimate. However, some months ago, when the announcement was made in the House about widows and widowers, I challenged the Secretary of State on that matter. Although I welcomed the fact that the benefit will go to existing widowers and not only to new widowers, I asked why we have to wait until 2001.
I have had to ask the local rotary club to bale out two widowers in my constituency in order to provide a much-needed holiday after their bereavement or to help with child care costs. I told those widowers that the Government—with their arm behind their back—will be bringing in additional benefits for widowers, but that widowers would have to wait, not until the start of the next financial year, but until 2001. They asked me why—I could give them no answer. As constituency Members of Parliament, we are having to turn to the voluntary sector—to rotary clubs, for goodness sake—to find financial support for that group of people, because the Government say that they cannot do anything until 2001.
The Government's amendment to our motion is abject—for want of a better word. What does it do? It supports the Government's bereavement payment, and the doubling of the value of the widows payment—so did the Liberal Democrat motion. It welcomes the additional help given to the children of widowers—as did our motion—so none of that part of the amendment was necessary. What else does the amendment do? It welcomes
the protection given to widows over 55, who might otherwise have no practical alternative to relying on Income Support.
Hang on—why might they otherwise have no practical alternative? Because the Government have just abolished their benefits. That is extraordinary. The amendment welcomes the fact that the Government have only been fairly nasty. For tomorrow's 55-year-olds, the Government will be very nasty, but for today's they will not.
We have already gone through half of the Government's amendment. The first two parts agree with our motion; and the next part states that we should applaud them for not being as nasty as they might have been. Then, in the last sentence, they give the reason that we should reject the motion: the amendment
welcomes the wide range of policies"—
none of which are listed—
which are designed to assist women to play a full and active part in the community.
So that is all right. We can take £500 million away from widows—the undeserving poor—because we are allowing women to play a full part in the community. I am sure that that makes widows feel very warm inside.
The Minister of State told us that the fact that the Government were slashing £500 million from widows was not important, because, over the first couple of years, they would be giving £100 million to widowers. That is bizarre logic. At the risk of insulting the hon. Gentleman, that is very un-new Labour. The new Labour thing to do is not

to talk about what the Government are doing this year, but to add together the next three years—or, given half the chance, to add together the next 30. However, the case of widows is different: to make a cut a few years down the line does not matter, the Government count only the money that is being spent this year. They are disregarding cuts down the track of £500 million for widows to focus only on this year.
The Minister spoke to representatives of Help the Aged yesterday. I saw the press release issued by the Department of Social Security. Its headline claimed that the Government were spending £4 billion extra on pensioners. [Interruption.] As the Minister says, it would be very good if they were. The question is: over what period is that £4 billion to be spent? Probably, it is three years because, in new-Labour-speak, numbers are usually tripled, so that would give an amount of £1.3 billion. Inflation is usually included, so that would knock off about £500 million. In effect, the Government will probably be spending an average of £800 million extra a year on pensioners—as indeed they are through income support. We welcome that. However, that amount is only one fifth of the amount that was claimed.
The Minister tells us that the cuts of £500 million for widows are unimportant because they are a few years down the track. To those people who will be widows at that time, the cuts will be as important then as if they had been made now. It is truly extraordinary that the only defence that the Minister can offer is that the cuts will take a few years to come through. However, the benefits will not be paid now; as I pointed out, widowers will have to wait until 2001.
I want to clarify and confirm the concession that the Minister made in the debate, because it is probably the most expensive concession that any of us have ever heard. As I understand it, people who were wrongly advised about SERPS—because they phoned the DSS in 1986 and were not told that their SERPS widows benefits would be cut—and who, on the strength of that bad advice, stayed in SERPS when they might have been better advised to opt out, will be compensated for that mistake.
I think that the record will show that that is what the Minister said. I am more than happy for those who read our proceedings to confirm that that is what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is leaving the Chamber at the moment, questioned the Minister on that point and is obviously running off to tell his local newspaper to report the concession that he wrought from the Government.
The Government must take action on the matter; Governments—in the sense that government is continuous—have failed to give citizens the right information. Let us face the fact that none of us really understand pensions.

Angela Eagle: Except the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Webb: Present company included. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for suggesting that I might understand pensions, but even I would not claim that.
The complexity of these matters is such that Governments must be proactive. If they make a complex change to a complex system, they must tell people about it. If they fail to tell people, they must take responsibility


for that failure. The Government failed to tell people about the SERPS changes; therefore, they have a responsibility to pay compensation.
The Minister said that an announcement would be made in due course—I think that those were the words he used. Three months ago, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that there would be compensation. Time is running out, because the ombudsman promised to give us a decision by next April, when this cut is implemented. Is the Minister in dialogue with the ombudsman? Is he waiting for the ombudsman to come to a conclusion? Will he undertake to implement whatever the ombudsman decides? Will he pre-empt the ombudsman? What if the ombudsman makes an announcement next March? Will we have to wait? It is not clear.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that there will be an announcement in due course. Elderly gentlemen—for it is they who are writing to us on these matters—who believe that they have made financial preparations in the event of their death, are distraught at what successive Governments have done to them. I accept the Government's admission that, in 1986, Labour voted against those measures, but, as with so many things, they are now in favour of them and will implement them. If they are going to implement them, they must compensate those people who were misled by successive Governments.
There has been a sustained assault on widows. A litany of measures have taken hundreds of millions of pounds out of the pockets of widows, who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as the undeserving poor. We have heard no convincing defence from the Minister; there is nothing in the Government's amendment that represents a defence. The case is proven and I urge the House to back our motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have had an interesting debate. It has ranged from an interpretation of Hamlet from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that was rather odd in places to a whole range of issues, some of which were sweeping in their scale and some of which were extremely detailed. In the remaining time for the debate, I shall try to deal with some of those issues.
Before I respond, I emphasise that our reforms will modernise an outdated scheme for those people who are bereaved. In considering widows benefit and the extension of the scheme for compensating widows, we would do well to remember the original purpose of such benefits. That was referred to in the extremely good speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). In the Beveridge reforms, the original purpose of the benefit was to compensate for the loss of a sole breadwinner; it was not to compensate for the pain of bereavement itself. Many of us have had painful experiences of bereavement, but, in considering the redesign of this benefit, we must focus on its original purpose.
The society of the 1940s was different from today's society. We are also talking about 2020 and many more years in the future, when I assume that society will

continue to evolve and change. Our society is not set in aspic, preserved like a museum piece. Nor should our welfare system be preserved like a museum piece. In the 1940s, when the widows benefit system was created, only one in eight married women worked. Now, seven in 10 married women work. In the 1940s, the opportunities available to women to support themselves through employment were much more limited than they are today. For example, in teaching—a profession in which women are always well represented—women were required to give up their jobs when they married. They were not expected to continue in employment. No such expectations exist now, thank goodness, and opportunities for women in the labour market continue to improve—although I would not say that they are entirely equal.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady referred to the 1940s—the time of the second world war. Is she in a position to tell us what happened to the Prime Minister's review of war widows pensions? When did the review body meet, what were its deliberations and what was the outcome?

Angela Eagle: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in raising the issue of war widows pensions. However, he will know that the war pensions scheme is entirely separate and different and does not come within the purview of this review. If he reads the Prime Minister's words, the hon. Gentleman will see that the Prime Minister said that that situation—like all Government policy—will be kept under review.
Women's opportunities in the labour market continue to improve. I am an optimist in this regard: I think that they will improve still further in the future. In the 1950s, only 100,000 women had access to occupational pensions—and that was through the pensions of their husbands. Today, 1.6 million women have such access. The society that was reliant on the single male bread winner, around whom the original welfare state was built, has disappeared. Women are now far more likely to be in work and accruing their own pension entitlements.
Our new scheme recognises that fact: it refocuses assistance by providing a weekly benefit for both widows and widowers with dependent children. Widowed parents allowance will have the same entitlement conditions and be paid at the same rate as the existing widowed mothers allowance, but will be available equally to mothers and fathers. William Beveridge would never have countenanced that—indeed, he ruled it out explicitly when considering bereavement provisions. About 40,000 new widows and 15,000 new widowers each year will gain from the new bereavement payment, which, at £2,000, will be double the existing widows payment.
We have recognised the needs of older widows and widowers through the new bereavement allowance. There has been little focus today on the transitional scheme for widows aged over 55. We recognise that women of that age are more likely to have been out of the labour market for long periods so they will not be asked to make themselves available for work. Our transitional scheme will passport those women on to retirement pensions by giving them an amount of money that is exactly the same as widows benefit. Women aged 55 at the time of the change will be passported into retirement and will lose nothing. Older generations of women—who were not long in the labour market or did not expect to work—will have


extra protection. There has been no mention of that scheme in the debate, and it would have been nice if hon. Members had conceded that point.
We have heard much talk about annuities and all sorts of pension rights. However, there has not been much criticism of the existing system, which fails to support poorer women as well as it supports those on higher incomes. Thy current system takes away benefit, pound for pound, from women on income support—who end up no better off, despite their widows payments. Therefore, we have introduced in legislation a £10 disregard on income support for women in that situation and a £15 disregard on both housing benefit and the working families tax credit in order to provide a little extra help. That is another positive measure introduced by the Government that was not mentioned in the debate.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) welcomed the extension of these benefits to widowers. However, he did so rather churlishly, claiming that the Government had acted under pressure from the courts. In fact, we introduced the measure because we believe that people should have equal access to benefit and not be discriminated against on the ground of gender. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the doubling of the bereavement payment but seemed to want to extend the entire scheme to those above pension age. That has never happened before.
To return to my initial comments, the payments for widows—which are now being extended—are designed to compensate for the loss of a breadwinner's income. There is no breadwinner in retirement, so that factor is not relevant. Payments have never been made to women over retirement age who lose their husbands. The hon. Gentleman wants to change the system and extend bereavement payments to men and women in retirement. That would cost £400 million a year, which presumably must be added to the £10 billion that the Liberal Democrats spent when telling us what we should do about SERPS and to the dozens of other spending commitments that littered Liberal Democrat contributions to the debate.
We are considering how we can ensure that the welfare system is modernised properly so as to retain the support into the future of both the taxpaying public and those on benefit. Therefore, we must take a little notice of how much proposed measures will cost. One quickly learns that, in terms of welfare reform and the Department of Social Security, billions of pounds of public expenditure can be dispensed with in the twitch of an eye. We must ensure that the expenditure is in proportion with the problem.

Mr. Rendel: The Minister must accept that the additional £10 billion—the Minister of State mentioned £5 billion in the case of SERPS—must be paid for by somebody. It will be paid for either by the widows, in which case each widow must pay rather a lot, or by the taxpayers, who would pay rather less. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, in order to retain the support of the taxpaying public, she will take all of that money from widows?

Angela Eagle: The money is not available in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I suspect that that is why the previous Government decided to restrict SERPS to half of the payable pension. However, they did it so

incompetently that—as I think all hon. Members have admitted today—they landed the present Government with enormous potential costs. That says it all about the standards that we expected, and became used to, from the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar went on about how the contributory principle had been badly affected by the changes. No one has recognised the fact that we have extended that principle through these changes: widowers will benefit from the contributions of their wives.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady must recognise that men will be disadvantaged because of the low level of women's contributions. Women have lower incomes, as the Minister of State conceded, so there will be no equality.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight. First, women's contributions are rapidly catching up with those of men. Secondly, the contribution rates for qualifying for benefits are quite modest over a lifetime of earnings.
The hon. Gentleman announced at the end of his peroration that he wanted the Government to "reverse this policy"—they were his exact words. Therefore, I assume that he opposes all the changes, including the doubling of bereavement payments and the extension of payments to widowers, upon which the previous Government utterly and resolutely refused to legislate during 18 years in office. I presume that the hon. Gentleman will go to the country at the next election and tell the beneficiaries of that payment that he is against it.

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No, I do not have much time.
On the question of when the changes should be introduced, the Conservative spokesman suggested that we should put off the changes to widows benefit until some unspecified time in the future. The hon. Member for Newbury also said that but, in his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) suggested that we should bring forward the introduction of the changes.
One part of the Liberal party and the Conservative party say that we should put off the changes, but the hon. Member for Northavon says the opposite. The Opposition do not know which way they are facing. It is difficult to listen to their arguments, when there is no coherence or consistency in their position.
The existing scheme is outdated. It was devised for a time when few married women worked and very few had insurance or a private pension. The death of the family breadwinner clearly had a huge impact on family finances, and the widow was dependent on support from the state.
However, widowed men with dependent children were usually expected to continue to work following their wife's death. Beveridge maintained that
very few men's wages are insufficient to cover at least two adults and one child.
Today the situation is entirely different. It is the norm in many two-parent families for both parents to work.
Our reformed scheme will reflect today's society by making bereavement benefits available equally to men and women. It will also take account of the increasing


number of married women in work, and the much higher number of people who are protected by life insurance and occupational pensions.
Our reforms will refocus expenditure, concentrating the help available from the state by focusing on immediate needs. The bereavement payment will give a tax-free lump sum of £2,000—double the current payment. Bereavement allowance will give older widows and widowers without dependent children the support that they need for the six months following bereavement. The help will focus on children and families.
Just as society cannot be preserved in aspic, neither can our welfare state be so preserved. It is our duty to keep the system relevant to modern society, not for ever stuck in the past. We believe that our proposed changes will do just that.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 274.

Division No. 219]
[4.2 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Moore, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Öpik, Lembit


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Rendel, David


Brake, Tom
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Breed, Colin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Stunell, Andrew



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cotter, Brian
Thompson, William


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Phil Willis and Sir Robert Smith.


Harvey, Nick



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Borrow, David


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allen, Graham
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burgon, Colin


Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Berry, Roger
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Best, Harold
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Dr Lynda



(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cousins, Jim



Cranston, Ross
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darvill, Keith
Khabra, Piara S


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kidney, David


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dawson, Hilton
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dean, Mrs Janet
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Denham, John
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Drew, David
Lock, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Love, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Edwards, Huw
McDonnell, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McFall, John


Ennis, Jeff
McIsaac, Shona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McNulty, Tony


Fisher, Mark
Mactaggart, Fiona


Flint, Caroline
McWalter, Tony


Follett, Barbara
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gapes, Mike
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Martlew, Eric


Gerard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Merron, Gillian


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Goggins, Paul
Moffatt, Laura


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Mountford, Kali


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hanson, David
Norris, Dan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Healey, John
Olner, Bill


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hepburn, Stephen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hesford, Stephen
Pearson, Ian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith
Perham, Ms Linda


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pike, Peter L


Hoey, Kate
Plaskitt, James


Hood, Jimmy
Pollard, Kerry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pond, Chris






Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Stott, Roger


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Salter, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Watts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheerman, Barry



Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wills, Michael


Singh, Marsha
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, James


Snape, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John
Wyatt, Derek


Squire, Ms Rachel




Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. David Jamieson.


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the Government's proposals to reform bereavement benefits, including the Bereavement Payment, which will provide a tax-free lump sum of £2,000—double the value of the current Widow's Payment; welcomes the additional help given to the children of widowers, who will qualify for the new Widowed Parent's Allowance, which will replace the Widowed Mother's Allowance; welcomes the protection given to widows over 55, who might otherwise have no practical alternative to relying on Income Support; and welcomes the wide range of policies which are designed to assist women to play a full and active part in the community.

Supermarkets

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the rapid expansion of out-of-town superstores under the Conservatives and the concentration of local market share has hit traditional town centres; notes that supermarket purchasing and pricing policies have hit farmers but not led to lower prices for consumers and are now under investigation by the Competition Commission as a result; further notes that a new wave of larger superstore developments and predatory pricing to gain market dominance, and a squeeze of local producers and traditional retailers, is threatened by Wal-Mart's acquisition of ASDA; therefore calls on the Government to reaffirm its commitment to preventing further out-of-town greenfield development, and to tackle urgently anti-competitive, anti-producer and anti-consumer practices by the major food retailers; and calls on the Prime Minister to put on record in the House the substantive contents of his meeting earlier this year with the Chief Executive of Wal-Mart and to clarify exactly what flexibility in planning regulation was offered in respect of any future superstore development.
The motion relates to food and supermarkets, and especially to developments in the food retailing business in past decades and to the potential for great change given the takeover of Asda by the giant American corporation Wal-Mart—the world's largest company. Consumers have welcomed the supermarket revolution that has taken place over several decades, because it has offered convenience shopping and greater choice. In towns in my constituency, supermarkets have submitted planning applications, saying that they will create so many hundred jobs, and often claiming that they will cut prices.
As the 1980s rolled on and we came into the 1990s, the general public became increasingly aware of the problems that that revolution caused many communities. All parties in the House recognised that problem in the early 1990s, as planning guidance was changed. The problems were clear. That change was not free: it came on the backs of traditional food retailers and other retailers, particularly in town centres, which have had to close. It has comprehensively been shown that jobs have been lost and weaker town centres have been destroyed.
In January 1998, Boots sponsored a report for the national retail planning forum, which shows how great the impact on jobs can be. It said that the impact of out-of-centre food superstores on local retail employment was substantial job losses. That is contrary to the claims that the supermarkets have made. The report examined the 15 km catchment areas of 93 superstores that had opened between 1991 and 1995. It found that the supermarkets had created 10,500 full-time equivalent jobs, but that 25,000 jobs had been lost in local specialist food retailers, which is a net loss of 15,000, and another 10,000 jobs had been lost in non-food retailers. That is an average loss of 276 full-time jobs for every store.
In September 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published its own research, which confirmed that town centre market share of food trade had been cut by 13 to 50 per cent., and that there was an overall cut in employment and an overall increase in car use. It also confirmed that—as we know from my own part of the world in Cornwall and


from other rural areas with small market towns—the supermarkets, having pretty comprehensively covered the larger towns and cities, are now aggressively targeting new development in small towns that still have a reasonably successful parade of shops but feel under real threat. Perranporth in my constituency is one such small town. That report recommended that all edge or outside-centre applications over 1,000 sq m should have a combined retail economic and traffic evaluation.
There are, beyond any doubt, real problems of job losses. Supermarkets have an impact not only on traditional town centres, but on the environment. The town centre sites—the brown-field sites—that the Government say that they want to be developed are often not available. The sequential test leads supermarkets to push for development on the edge or even outside the town centre. Nothing in the sequential test says no to that. The larger the store for which they are seeking permission, the less likely it is that there will be a suitable in-town site.
Such development encourages traffic growth at a time when the Government are struggling to cut traffic and congestion. It leads to the dereliction of town centres in commercial terms with the loss of shops, and the loss of shops leads to the death of the town centre and to the increase in the dereliction of the community and, ultimately, in crime. From the environmental point of view, it leads to unnecessary food miles.
The supermarkets claim that there are price benefits, but they dominate the local market, which gives them real power over suppliers and customers. Farmers and other suppliers have reeled from the blows to agriculture. No one in this country can be unaware of the problems that farming has faced in the past few years, but what makes many farmers and, indeed, ordinary customers angry is the fact that the prices of supermarket goods have not fallen. We are also seeing some extraordinary anti-competitive practices, which are now subject to investigation by competition authorities.
Farmers who supply, for instance, brussels sprouts to major retailers have told me that they are required to buy their bags from a particular manufacturer, and that those bags are more expensive than the ones that they formerly obtained from their own sources. Why does the supermarket chain involved insist that those farmers buy expensive bags, when they could obtain bags more cheaply? The answer must be the link between the manufacturer of the bags and the supermarket. There have been negotiations which, supposedly, concerned an entirely different matter; but it has been alleged to me that the supermarkets get a kickback from the suppliers of the bags, while the farmers bear the cost.
We are also seeing sole agreements. Very little is given to farmers in the case of such agreements. Only rarely is there a guarantee of price, or even of purchase; but the price is squeezed, year by year by year. If the farmer finally goes out of business, that is not a problem: the business is simply transferred elsewhere. From the point of view of the rural community, money is being squeezed out. Similarly, because profits go elsewhere, supermarkets take money that might otherwise have stayed in the community. Local shops supplying meat and vegetables

tend to buy within the local community, but supermarkets contract across the country, which means that food travels for long distances.
As for the producers, we often hear about promotions and cut-price sales; but the cut-price sales are often loss leaders, and the price of other goods in the supermarket often compares unfavourably with that of goods in local shops. Certain targeted items are sold very cheaply. The farmers who supply those items say that they are asked to bear the cost of promotion, so the supermarkets do not suffer in that respect either.
Customers, who are supposedly the big gainers, often find that they are nothing of the kind. Local and regional market dominance often means that prices are nowhere near as low as one might expect. We see loss leaders, but mostly high margins. We see returns for British supermarket chains that are several times higher than those of supermarket chains in France, and well above the average in Europe and America. As the town centre is lost, the 20 or 25 per cent. of the community who have no access to cars find that they can no longer get to the shops so easily.
I do not say any of this on the basis that the parties disagree. Certainly, they do not disagree publicly.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is it now Liberal policy to oppose supermarkets? The hon. Gentleman has said nothing in their favour.

Mr. Taylor: I was about to say something about the policy developed by the last Government and the present Government, which we have supported. I refer to the process of constraining the development of supermarkets, especially out-of-town supermarkets. We want changes in the rating system to help small shops, which pay high rates compared with the rates paid by supermarkets. The Government have done nothing about that.
I do not want to give the false impression that there is a huge division between the parties. There are key questions about where we are to go from here and what is happening in Government, and I shall deal with those shortly.
The policy that has been observed since 1993 relating to the sequential test—town centre, edge of centre, outer centre—is an important development, which was updated in 1996. There were two elements in that. The first was the sequential test. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the suggestion that it is important to look for the town-centre site first. They might have in the past, but I think that we are all agreed now. However, there is a second element. Once the sequential test has been exhausted, a supermarket chain may say that the only place where it can go is out of town. That will lead to an argument that boils down to this: should we allow more competition among supermarkets, thus allowing the development of new supermarkets that can compete with existing ones? Is that more important than preserving town centres, existing communities and environment? The test does not provide an answer to that question. It says that there should be a decision based on need, but we have yet to find out exactly where the Government stand.
A report published last year by the Environment and Science Research Council states:
Since the mid-1990s, when the revised planning guidelines were introduced, the major food retailers increased floor space by nearly 2.5 million square feet a year, much the same as in earlier years.


The theory is great, but, in practice, not much has changed, partly because of existing permissions. That is why we are now reaching a stage at which the test will be much stronger. As the existing permissions are used up, new sites will be sought. Asda has clearly said that it wants to do that in the south. Permissions will also be sought for the expansion of existing sites.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is the hon. Gentleman opposed to supermarkets per se, or is he just opposed to out-of-town retail centres? There is a difference. A well-placed supermarket can provide an anchor for a town centre.

Mr. Taylor: I am opposed to bad sites, generally out of town, and also to the growth of larger hypermarkets which, increasingly, sell not only food but other goods. They will knock out competition, and, indeed, have been designed to do so.
The last year of the Conservative Government and the first year of the Labour Government saw similar levels of supermarket development, but I think that we face a real issue now.

Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about existing planning permissions. I cannot specify the exact period, but it was always known that a considerable number of years of extant supermarket permissions would have to be gone through before the policy could change. Surely that is the crux of the problem.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. He may recall, as he was present for some of our debates on protecting green fields, that we argued that, while the Government were going through a process of review of planning guidance and planning law, they should put a hold on the development of some of those very large sites.
The hon. Gentleman is not right in suggesting that only extant permissions are involved. In north-west Coventry, for instance, inspectors have overturned local opposition to allow development of sites that they themselves have described as not ideal, and local authorities have given permission for major increases in the size of retailing facilities.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: Not yet. I have already given way several times.
Last autumn, at the annual convention of "Action for Market Towns", the Minister made some helpful and positive comments. He was right to draw attention to the problem to which I have drawn attention today. He said:
Many superstores now offer services like banking and pharmacies, and can effectively take over the traditional role of the town centre. They also create fewer not more jobs in the local area.
Earlier this year, a report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs said that the Government should
forbid future out-of-town or edge-of-town shopping centres or other developments which generate large amounts of private car travel".

That is not the existing policy; it is quite a large change in policy. So far, the Government say that they want a period of stability, rather than to change the policy.
My first worry is that the existing policy is not as strong as it has been presented to be. Neither the sequential test nor the test of need answer that point. The real issue is: will these developments be allowed, or are we going to take the line suggested by the Select Committee and say no to such developments in normal circumstances?

Mr. James Gray: Why have so many of the planning permissions that have been granted for huge out-of-town shopping centres been granted by Liberal Democrat-controlled councils? East Hampshire and Harrogate have done so, and my own North Wiltshire district council gave permission for a Sainsbury and a Safeway outside Chippenham, which have wrecked Chippenham high street.

Mr. Phil Willis: There is not one in Harrogate.

Mr. Taylor: Yes; so the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) may be wrong about that. Moreover, he knows as well as I do that councillors, of whichever party, are obliged to follow the Government's planning guidance, and are at risk financially if they do not. They cannot refuse permission simply because the local community is against granting it, but may do so only on planning grounds. If planning guidance does not enable them to refuse permission, they cannot refuse it.
Rather more extraordinarily, the former Secretary of State—

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): What waffle.

Mr. Taylor: How does the Minister explain the fact that councillors in my own area are facing surcharges precisely because they allegedly did not follow Government guidance? Councillors are clearly obliged to follow guidance and can be surcharged if they do not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment, but shall first answer the question of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire.
The former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), often argued against the previous Government's policy on supermarket development. I spoke to him today on the issue, and he supported the Liberal Democrats' position on it. Yet, when he was Secretary of State, he overturned the recommendation—not only of the local community, but of the inspector—that an out-of-town supermarket should not be built just up the road from my constituency.
Although we could all throw brickbats on the issue, we have made some progress on it, to put it most mildly. Now, the issue is how we shall address current issues. I


should like to mention specific issues facing the Government, on which their action does not match their briefings.

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should block extant planning permissions. From what he has said, clearly, he is a planning expert. Will he therefore tell us how they are to block those extant permissions?

Mr. Taylor: The policy position that we articulated in previous debates is that the Government should place a moratorium on granting further development permissions. If I said anything unclear in making that point, I hope that that will have clarified it. We have debated the issue at length in the House.

Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has to let me make some progress.
The Government's position has much support. However, I should like to know whether the debate within Government in contrast to the Government's stated position—that current planning guidance will provide protection—will protect traditional town centres, as the Minister has said that it will.

Mr. A. J. Beith: When Labour Members think that there are no possibilities of Government intervention, they should remember that the Secretary of State overturned an existing planning permission in my constituency that is now the subject of a court case between the council and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Taylor: I should like to deal with a couple of points before addressing the main issue in our motion. The first is that the Government have vacillated in their position on out-of-town supermarkets, between the need to restrain developments and the need to encourage competition between them.
In May 1996, for example, when Chris Davies—the former Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, who is now a Member of the European Parliament—initiated a debate on the subject, that day's newspaper headlines proclaimed that the Government were to implement out-of-centre parking charges. Within hours, in an official statement, the possibility of such charges was rebutted, and it was said that they were no longer on the agenda.
The issue was raised again in debates on the transport White Paper, when the Government said that there would be parking charges on out-of-town supermarkets. We then heard the Deputy Prime Minister's fury in attacking the teeny-boppers at No. 10 Downing street for ruling out such charges after a meeting between supermarkets and No. 10 Downing street.
Similarly, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—I give the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning credit for this—undoubtedly believe, and have argued very strongly, that major new out-of-town supermarkets should not be developed, and that the issue is not competition but protection of the countryside.

Nevertheless, there have been regular briefings from the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, saying that they believe that competition is the higher priority, and that planning requirements should be softened.

Mr. Willis: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend—and the Minister, who represents a Sheffield constituency—will address one crucial issue: differential support in rating valuations for supermarkets and town-centre shopping. Differential rating valuations between, particularly, small town centres and out-of-town shopping centres is making competition terribly unfair. Until we restore the balance between the two, we shall never solve the specific problem about which we are so concerned.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and Liberal Democrats have made that argument many times in the House.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Taylor: No.
Now, we come to the key issue facing the Government: the purchase of Asda by Wal-Mart, the American retailer. The purchase should, in itself, ring alarms. Wal-Mart is an enormous company, with global sales totalling one tenth the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. It is also the world's largest private employer, and well connected—Hillary Clinton is a former board member.
One of Wal-Mart's tactics is to squeeze its suppliers but, as I said, British farmers are already suffering from such squeezing. Its basic tactic is to compete aggressively with other supermarkets. It moves in and opens more centres—contrary to the Government's policy and the views held on both sides of the House—which is exactly what Asda would like to do in southern England.
Wal-Mart would like to have much larger centres, selling a much larger range of goods—posing a correspondingly larger threat to traditional town centres, and entirely contrary to the Government's articulated position. It is therefore little wonder that there is great concern about Wal-Mart's potential impact on traditional town centres and traditional suppliers.
All those concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the process seems to have been started at a meeting, on 25 February, between the Prime Minister and Bobby Martin, Wal-Mart's chief executive. We might not be concerned about that meeting if we were given some clear answers about what happened at it, but we are not receiving clear answers. Off the record, newspapers have been briefed that there was no discussion of the planning issue. On the record, however, in parliamentary answers, we are told, "Nothing at all will be said about the meeting."
The most extraordinary feature of the Government's amendment to our motion is that they fail to address the key issue of Wal-Mart, which is mentioned in our motion. Was the planning issue raised? If not, why does the Prime Minister not say so in a parliamentary answer? As we all know, the difference between an official briefing to the newspapers by some unknown official and the Prime Minister replying on the record is that the Prime Minister can be held to account for his answer if it proves inaccurate.
If the newspapers were not briefed by the Prime Minister's office—I assume that they were not—they must have been briefed by Wal-Mart.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall be happy to give way in a moment, but I want to make progress on this point.

The Mail on Sunday stated on 20 June:
The PM had used the meeting to further his aim to bring down prices in British supermarkets by giving the Americans the go-ahead to enter Britain. In his desire to do this, he is said to have offered to relax planning curbs which could let Wal-Mart build huge US-style hypermarkets on greenfield sites in Britain.
Mr. Blair was not alone at the meeting. At his side was his own Mr. Fix-It, personal economics adviser Geoff Norris … Mr. Norris was in a bitter row a year ago when he vetoed plans by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to curb car use to improve the environment. Mr. Prescott hit out at 'teenyboppers' at No. 10 … and said his remarks were aimed at Mr. Norris.
The official line was that it was a courtesy visit. Since when has a Prime Minister received courtesy visits from the bosses of one of the world's biggest companies when it does not even operate in Britain? Are we seriously being asked to believe that there was no discussion about the potential for Wal-Mart to enter this country or the consequences of that?
Clearly, The Sunday Telegraph was also briefed on the subject. It said:
Earlier this year, Wal-Mart executives
—[Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members can tell me who the briefings were from. They were either from Wal-Mart or Asda, or from the Prime Minister's office. Either way, somebody within the industry believes that Wal-Mart was given the green light for those developments.
The article said that Wal-Mart executives
shared a glass of sherry with Tony Blair at Number 10 Downing Street. They wanted to know whether their company would be welcome in Britain and were warmly received.
—[Interruption.] Labour Members may not like it, but that is what we were told. Perhaps they should ask the Prime Minister's office—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have silence in the Chamber except from the hon. Member who is speaking.

Mr. Taylor: The article returned to the key issue:
To achieve real competition, Wal-Mart needs a substantial relaxation in the planning laws to allow it to build its vast stores in favoured locations. The odds on that look long since the environmental lobby is growing ever stronger, but observers still believe that Wal-Mart will get what it wants.
Why else would Wal-Mart be moving into Britain? Its strategy is to achieve profits and growth by building new larger stores to take on and beat the existing ones. Yet Asda, which has very little presence in the south, is in no position to do that unless it can acquire new sites and in a way that the Government claim to be against. There is no logic to the takeover if that cannot be achieved, because Asda has made it clear that it intends to squeeze down the margins as a way of gaining competitive advantage.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
The Guardian, a paper with a very different political view, said in an article on 16 June:
The Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have been keen to open up retail competition. A report last year for the Treasury by consultants McKinsey concluded that planning rules should be relaxed to allow more supermarkets.
The McKinsey report was commissioned by the Treasury and is now part of the competition inquiry into supermarkets that is now taking place. Is it any indication of the direction in which the Government are going?
The article includes a direct quote from an unnamed source at the DTI, which incidentally comes just after a reference to one of the Ministers. It states:
The DTI source said: 'We want competition. Where there are barriers to competition, we need a good explanation. A particular concern is that national benefits such as lower food prices are properly taken into account, as well as local disbenefits from new developments.'
As a result of today's debate, Asda has issued a press release stating that it intends to adjust its policies within the current planning requirements. However, Allan Leighton, chief executive of Asda, said this week:
If we were in the south, prices would be lower. You have got to believe there should be a softening in planning to allow the leading players to develop leading formats.
There in no question about what Asda wants or what Wal-Mart must want. The real question is: Why was it after a meeting with the Prime Minister that Wal-Mart felt able to come in? If we get clarification from the Government on that, today's debate will have served a genuine and useful purpose.

Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I realise that it is his job to probe the issue and I am sure that the Minister will answer his question. He has mentioned Wal-Mart bringing down prices. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to oppose Wal-Mart's takeover of Asda?

Mr. Taylor: On prices, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that one reason why the Office of Fair Trading inquiry took place was that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) prepared a report on overpricing in the industry. Those issues, the anti-competitive practices and the bad treatment of suppliers can be addressed without Wal-Mart coming to Britain. If Wal-Mart is coming here on the basis of new development, we are opposed to it. The issue is not whether or not Wal-Mart is involved, but whether there will be new development. However, we must ask why Wal-Mart is coming here given that we know its policy. Why did it buy Asda, which supports the same policy of much bigger retailing units—indeed, it already has plans for 10 hypermarkets—and wishes to move into the south even though the sites are not available? Asda must be looking for new sites—indeed, it has already made that clear. Asda, unlike the other major food retailers, is specifically targeting similar operations to Wal-Mart and plans to move into non-food retailing, which has a greater impact on town centres. All the newspaper reports say the same thing. The information must be coming from somewhere.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
It is obvious where the information is from, as the newspapers make that clear. The Mail on Sunday said:
An Industry Department source said: 'We must do everything we can to encourage competition. The vital importance of achieving lower food prices must be taken into account alongside environmental arguments involving proposed new developments.' Wal-Mart has made no public comment about wanting to build bigger stores in Britain.
However, Asda has.
It is pretty obvious that The Guardian has it exactly right when it says that there is a struggle with those who believe that the primary issue is lower prices, which can be achieved only by the development of more and bigger supermarkets in tighter competition. That is a perfectly legitimate view, but it is not the view of DETR Ministers or the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. There are other ways to tackle the issue without raping the countryside and our town centres.

Mr. Gray: In an intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said that there was no out-of-town supermarket in Harrogate. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. He has made his intervention, issued his press release and shoved off some place else. Liberal Democrat-controlled Harrogate council gave planning permission to Morrisons and Sainsbury to build supermarkets on green-field sites.

Mr. Beith: Where?

Mr. Gray: Just outside Harrogate. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Liberal Democrat-controlled Harrogate will give permission for Wal-Mart—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.

Mr. Taylor: My colleagues tell me that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate, but I am not in a position to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The hon. Gentleman can pursue him on another occasion.
I do not know whether those on the Conservative Front Bench support our concerns. I know that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, a former Secretary of State for the Environment, strongly supports them and went on the television to say so. We shall find out soon whether there is division among the Conservatives.
I want to quote one last time from the newspapers. The Sunday Telegraph said:
Given Wal-Mart's relentless attention to detail there is no doubt that it has already drawn up a blueprint for Asda, one that it is reluctant to share with outsiders.
Wal-Mart has refused to comment. The report continued:
It is almost certain to be based on the vision of transforming Asda into Britain's dominant retail business within the next few years, through a mixture of aggressive store openings and prices low enough to put rivals out of business.
We know that Asda is pursuing that strategy and that Wal-Mart's acquisition makes commercial sense only if it is allowed to do that. We need to know whether the Government are going to stand up to that strategy.
The Government must clarify their policy. On 17 June, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a response to the report in The Guardian. It said:
This is wrong. The Government has no intention of changing the policy on retail development which is directed to promoting the viability of our town and city centres.
That is reassuring, but the press release goes on to refer only to the sequential approach, and so does not clarify whether it will allow large, out-of-town retail development. The approach says only that the first choice is for in-town development, but, if there are no in-town or edge-of-town sites, the need should be examined. All the evidence is that the debate in the Government about whether the need for greater competition should allow out-of-town developments in the circumstances that I have described or whether they should hold the line is still lively and, at best, undecided.
The McKinsey report recommended a change to give competition priority over the environment. We know that Asda is pursuing those developments. We know that Wal-Mart's acquisition makes sense only on that basis. If the Government want to reassure us, they should stop refusing to say anything on the record about what happened at that meeting. They need to be clearer about what happens after the sequential approach is exhausted and what they believe about need, competition and the development of new and much larger superstores around our towns, cities and smaller country towns. That is the issue. I hope that the House will agree with us, but nothing in the takeover and the Government's response so far holds out any reassurance.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's planning policy on town centres and retail development, which promotes the development of food retailing in existing centres; endorses its attempts to maintain vital, viable competitive town, district and neighbourhood centres, which provide a broad range of retail services accessible to the whole population regardless of whether they have access to a car; welcomes the benefits which supermarkets have brought to consumers; notes the concerns over the level of supermarket profits and approves the investigation of grocery retailing being carried out by the Competition Commission; welcomes the recently agreed re-shaping of the CAP and the establishment of the second pillar of the CAP—an integrated rural development policy; and welcomes the Government's commitment to rural communities, its efforts to increase collaborative marketing among farmers and encourage diversification, and its support for regional, speciality and traditional food producers.
We do not often congratulate an Opposition party on tabling a motion opposing the Government, but I welcome the debate because it gives us an opportunity to set out our position on out-of-town shopping and supermarkets. It is good of the Liberal Democrats to use half their Supply day to give me that opportunity. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) gave us one of the best examples that I have heard of a speech based on joined-up press releases and press cuttings. There was not a great deal of new substance to it. I shall try to clarify what has happened over the past 10 days and at some of the recent meetings.
I must make my apologies to the House, because unfortunately—or fortunately—I have a speaking engagement elsewhere and I shall not be here for the vote,


if there is one. I shall deal with the Government's planning policy for supermarkets and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with the food issues that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has raised.
I welcome the opportunity to make the Government's position clear. Soon after we came to office, we published our response to the report of the Environment Committee on shopping centres. We made it clear that we were firmly committed to the objectives of the planning policy guidance note on town centres and retail development—PPG6.
Everyone knows that PPG6 seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing city, town and district centres to make them the focus for retail investment, so as to provide everyone with easy access to a wide range of facilities and services by a choice of means of transport. I remind hon. Members that nearly a third of households still do not have a car. Such investment is essential to the regeneration and enhancement of the attractiveness of our towns and cities.
What does that mean? We want local planning authorities to establish the need—a point raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell—for new retail facilities in their plans, and we want them to apply the sequential approach to identifying sites where this can be accommodated. That should be in existing centres. Developers who propose schemes that do not conform to that will have to demonstrate clearly that there is a need for the scheme.
I refer the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell to a written answer on 11 February, when I cleared up the whole question of need—a point on which the hon. Gentleman dwelt and on which, I think, he accused the Government of being inconsistent. What does "need" mean? In that written answer, I said that, first, would-be developers must demonstrate that need does not mean simply an assertion by the developer that there is a market demand. It means that the local planning authority must consider the wider needs of the community as well as the market demand for a plan before it accepts the development plan. If the local authority is satisfied that a need exists, it must also be satisfied that the sequential test has been applied in selecting the site. Even then—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said that he wants answers to his questions, so I hope he will do me the courtesy of listening while I give him those answers.
Even then, the local authority must also consider whether there will be an adverse impact on the existing centre before it allows the proposal to go forward. That was a clear definition of the word "need".

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister's comments are helpful. As I said, I believe that the Minister and his team at the Department share my concerns on this. However, can the Minister clarify whether, if it is believed that there will be an adverse impact either on the community or the town centre, that in itself could always be taken as grounds by councillors for refusing permission?

Mr. Caborn: We actually have devolved government and the planning authority is the local authority. Because of certain cases before the courts, we have tried to clarify the word "need". It will be for the local planning authority

to make the decisions. If people believe that local authorities have acted outside their rights and responsibilities, there are many mechanisms by which they can be challenged. But we cannot and will not be as prescriptive as to say that everything can be determined from the centre. On the contrary, we believe that devolving government to local authorities is important.
It is difficult in a narrow debate such as this to talk about the wider impact of the planning regime. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, since we came to power, we have looked at modernising land use and transport planning. We have now instituted for the first time at the regional level an examination in public, in an attempt to change planning regimes from being reactive to proactive. The first hearing in public took place in the eastern region. I believe that it has been successful. SERPLAN, the south-east regional planning conference, is going through that process now, and all the regions will go through it this year and the early part of next.
So the context is one of the right to make decisions strategically at the regional level, translating that into the local or unitary development plan, and the planning authority, in turn, translating that. That gives local authorities every opportunity to plan in the most positive way for their communities.

Mr. Taylor: There is nothing in that with which we would disagree. However, the Minister knows that what Ministers say in this House helps to influence what happens, particularly in inspectors' inquiries when they try to interpret the Government's intentions. In the past, councillors have often looked to refuse permission for out-of-town or edge-of-town retail superstores on the basis that they would harm the existing community. However, councillors have not been successful because, while that condition may be taken into account, it is not sufficient in itself.
Is the Minister saying that the policy now is that, if there will be a detrimental impact on an existing town centre, that should be taken as sufficient in itself by an inspector, should it go to appeal, to uphold the refusal by the local council?

Mr. Caborn: I will repeat what I said on 11 February, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read my response of that date. Following the court case, we believed that the word "need" needed to be clarified, and we did that. If the local authority is satisfied that the need exists, it must be satisfied also that the sequential test has been applied in selecting a site. Even then, it must consider whether there will be an adverse impact on existing centres by allowing the proposal.
All that we can do is to give that type of guidance. When we do that, it can be cited in courts and at the various planning inquiries. Coupling that with what we are trying to do to bring more certainty to the planning system through other actions will mean that local planning authorities will be able to carry through their plans for their communities.
As I was saying, developers will have to demonstrate that there is a need for their scheme; that they could not find a more central site; and that there would be no significant impact on existing centres. I want to reaffirm that that is still our policy and that we have no plans to change it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed that.
Let me put the record straight about the rumours concerning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's meeting with Wal-Mart. My right hon. Friend has put it on record that he has given no assurances to Wal-Mart about relaxing planning policy. Indeed, planning issues were not discussed.
I am pleased to say that our policy has widespread support in this House, from the general public and within the industry. However, there are some exceptions. For example, Asda's chief executive is reported to have told the BBC's "The Money Programme" that the only way forward is to loosen planning restrictions.
It is interesting to note that the Asda chairman, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), told the House as recently as 3 February 1999 that
it is important to recognise that the supermarket industry has, for the most part, welcomed the tightening of the planning restrictions, which is good for the industry and for the community."—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1030.]
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman maintains that view when he has been so publicly associated with the takeover proposal by Wal-Mart.
I picked up a copy of an Asda press release when I came to the House. It says:
Following today's report in the Financial Times Asda wishes to clarify that following the proposed acquisition by Wal-Mart, it plans to continue to trade in the UK under the Asda banner.
We will continue to back British farmers, favour small British suppliers and crusade for value for British consumers.
It will remain Asda's policy to adapt its store development plans to meet the intention and spirit of today's planning regulations and to work closely with local communities to meet local environmental and transport needs.
As far as Asda is concerned, rumours to the effect that there has been any understanding, formal or informal, with the Government on relaxation of planning requirements are complete nonsense.
Asda is all over the shop, with its chief executive saying one thing and its chairman saying another. However, we welcome that statement.
We are determined to maintain a firm and consistent application of the policy. That is more important than scoring a few points about press releases, and would be expected of us by all the stakeholders. Indeed, in the past two years we have clarified and tightened up the policy in PPG6, closing some loopholes; we have called in a large number of applications to ensure the consistent application of the policy; we have refused a high proportion of appeal and call-in cases, allowing only those in or on the edge of town centres; and we have successfully defended our policy in the courts.
I would characterise our policy stance on supermarkets as tough but fair. We have tried to keep the policy up to date; to ensure that it is applied firmly and consistently, without fear or favour; and to ensure a level playing field for all players in the industry. All the letters that we have received support our policy. Nobody from whom the Department has received representations wants us to relax it. Everyone wants to be reassured that we will maintain and uphold the policy, and I give the assurance that we will.

Mr. Brian Cotter: The Minister talked about a fair policy on supermarkets. What about

business rates, which cost supermarkets only 5 per cent. of their turnover, whereas small shops pay anything from 12 to 15 per cent? That is not exactly fair.

Mr. Caborn: We are prepared to debate anything that the Opposition table in a motion, but I was not asked to respond on that subject today.
We inherited a situation in which the number of superstores had increased nearly tenfold since 1980. Very many of them were built outside existing centres, and there were still out-of-town stores coming off the production line when we came to power. The legacy of the previous Government was a deluge of out-of-town stores. They left a trail of disaster and absolutely let the market rip. A combination of permissive planning policy and a property boom in the late 1980s meant that half the current out-of-town retail floor space was built in only five years, from 1986 to 1991. Another boom following the recession of the early 1990s brought another surge of out-of-town development. The situation was totally unmanageable.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister agree that there was a significant change in policy at about the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), for whom I worked as a special adviser in the Department of the Environment, entered that Department? From then on, there was a significant shift in the number of permissions given for out-of-town centres. Does he agree that some tribute should be paid to the previous Government?

Mr. Caborn: I have acknowledged on many occasions that the previous Government introduced PPG6, and we welcome that, but that does not alter the fact that they were responsible for the massive expansion of out-of-town shopping in such a short period that has done so much damage to our town and city centres. We are only now beginning to reap the benefit of the change in policy to which the hon. Gentleman referred and, in the meantime, the boom has had a devastating effect on many of our local centres. It has been a very damaging and wasteful process, effectively playing Russian roulette with the future of our towns and communities. It is a process that we cannot afford to repeat. We will not do so, which is why this debate is very timely indeed.
We are determined to take a tough line. We realise that we must capture new retail investment for our town and city centres. We must ensure that supermarkets are developed in existing centres, to help to make them attractive and competitive. That is particularly true of smaller towns and district centres where we need to have stores of the right size.
Our independent research, conducted by Hillier Parker, on the impact of large stores on market towns and district centres showed that locating stores outside such centres can be very damaging. It showed that large food stores outside towns or district centres have in some cases cut the market share of the principal food retailers in such centres by up to 50 per cent.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will be only too aware, the opening of superstores on the edge of town in many areas in the south-west has had a devastating effect on the town centres. Penzance, Helston and Falmouth illustrate that all too well. Small towns in East Anglia and small centres in our larger towns show similar results.
The research provides strong support for the tough line we are taking, and we need to capture that "inward investment" to revitalise our town centres. We cannot afford to allow new out-of-town schemes that undermine rather than reinforce the vitality and viability of existing centres.
If we are to regenerate our town, district and local centres, we will have to adopt a positive, plan-led approach. Our policy advice urges local planning authorities to adopt a much more proactive approach to the task. For example, they should say where new retail development is needed, and where it will be encouraged, and identify sites and, if need be, help to assemble those sites. We need to capture new investment for town centres. That means taking a positive approach to planning for new food stores, to help to bring about our wider aim of an urban renaissance, and using them to anchor the regeneration of district and local centres.
There are some encouraging signs that the message is getting through. Some companies have developed new formats, such as the Tesco Metro and Sainsbury's Local. The convenience store could be the format of the future for our local communities. Our retail policy is all part of our strategy for bringing about an urban renaissance.
Lord Rogers, who has headed the urban task force, will present his report and recommendations to the Government next week. We hope that his report will form the basis of the urban White Paper—and the rural White Paper—that we will publish later this year. Those White Papers will address the wider issues. The subject of our debate today will form part of that urban renaissance and should be seen in that context. If we are to make our towns and cities, and our local neighbourhoods, places where people choose to live, then we must make sure that we can offer them the quality of life that we all expect for ourselves.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuing the worthy objective of an urban renaissance, we should encourage distinctive urban centres, so that we do not end up with the uniformity of development that we have seen in the past? We should celebrate diversity and regional and local differences in our town centres.

Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to change the whole concept of the planning regimes in this country and we want local authorities to be proactive, not reactive. Many initiatives are emerging in our city and town centres. I recently visited Manchester to open some flats that had been developed from an old broken-down warehouse. All those flats had been sold before the conversion had taken place. When designers and architects use their imagination, there is a market for the result. If professional people can be persuaded to stay in towns and cities, their disposable income starts to have an effect on the type of restaurants and shops in the area, and a virtuous circle develops.
We also want to develop the individual character of our towns and cities. We have some beautiful cities that can be said to be European, and there is no reason why we cannot develop some of those cities, as has been done in Barcelona. Shops and supermarkets are beginning to accept their responsibilities as part of the urban

renaissance. That approach to planning and investment in the inner cities has brought out creative talent instead of letting the market rip, which produced the situation that we inherited. Even the Conservatives accepted that before they left office, and introduced PPG6, which we welcomed.
The new approach to regenerating smaller centres and building them up to meet a wide range of everyday needs is part of our approach to tackling social exclusion. We want to ensure that everyone has good access to shops, especially food shops, and that will often mean ensuring that appropriately sized supermarkets are opened in local centres.
Our objective is to promote competitive and vibrant town centres. We want retailers to compete on the same terms in the same market place: the town centre. The planning system provides a level playing field for all players, regardless of size or ownership. We are not trying to protect one firm against competition from another. Our policy is fair, clear and consistent with our overarching aim of revitalising our towns and cities. We intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Nick Gibb: This is an important debate. A number of concerns have arisen in recent years about the food retailing industry. The growth of large supermarkets in out-of-town locations has been a fact of life for 20 or 25 years, and has taken place in Europe and the United States as well as in the United Kingdom.
The reasons for that growth are many, but unclear. They include social changes: people lead increasingly busy and demanding lives, and want to do their shopping in one trip once a week, at stores with easy parking. Other factors include increased pedestrianisation in many town centres, and the success of supermarkets in improving quality, choice and variety and in bringing down prices.
The motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats mentions
the rapid expansion of out-of-town superstores under the Conservatives".
Like the Minister's speech, that is a facile and juvenile approach to a complex issue. It does no credit to the Liberal Democrats, or to the Minister. However, although it was one-sided and simplistic, the Minister's speech was slightly less polemical than the motion and will contradict many speeches made by Liberal Democrats in constituencies around the country.
The growth of out-of-town supermarkets has had a damaging effect on smaller retailers and town centres, as I know only too well from what has happened in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Moreover, despite the gains in efficiency and economies of scale that supermarkets achieve, the prices that they charge are considerably higher than in similar enterprises in the United States. An effective campaign has been run by The Sunday Times to expose such price differentials.
There may be many reasons for those differentials, as no doubt the Competition Commission will report. Transport costs are higher in this country, especially after the Government's huge hike in diesel prices. [Interruption.] In total, the Government have increased the escalator from 5 to 6 per cent., and there has been more than one increase in any given year. The result is


that diesel prices are 21 per cent. higher than when the Government came to power. The escalator is higher and faster than it used to be. It should be ended, because it is making the problems worse.

Mr. Martlew: If the cost of DERV has gone up so much, why have supermarket prices risen by only 1.5 per cent. since the Government came into power?

Mr. Gibb: One cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Either there is a problem, or there is not. In this case, there is a problem. One of the key contributors to it is the high price of diesel, as we shall see when the commission reports.
The second problem is the price of land. We live in a crowded island where planning guidance is very strict, for worthwhile reasons. The result of the two problems that I have set out—high prices for diesel and for land—is that the prices charged by the supermarkets are also high. A more important factor still is the absence of fierce competition between the large, multiple retailers.
The third element that needs to be highlighted is that the British farmers who supply supermarkets do not receive a fair price for their produce. That is especially apparent in the fact that falling livestock prices have not been passed on to the consumer. The price of pork provides a stark example. There has been a catastrophic fall in pig prices over the past couple of years.

Dr. Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about farm prices. A farmer in my constituency tells me that the price of his cabbages has not gone up for seven years. He receives 15p a cabbage now, and he got 15p a cabbage then. Supermarkets put their prices up year after year, so why is the poor old farmer receiving exactly the same price he was paid all that time ago?

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although I am keen to get away from the consensus that appears to be developing.
Lack of competition among supermarkets affects consumers, but it affects suppliers too. There is concern that the supermarkets have almost monopsonistic purchasing power over their suppliers, and that that position is being abused. Supermarkets set high environmental, hygiene and quality standards for farmers and suppliers, and strict employee welfare conditions are required; yet, if the price or quality is better overseas, they are happy to switch to suppliers who do not enforce those conditions.
The environment is my fourth concern. It is suggested that out-of-town developments eat up the fast-diminishing stock of our countryside and that more such shopping means more car journeys.
All four of those concerns are real. The multiples supplied 86 per cent. of the United Kingdom grocery market in 1998, and are expected to account for 32.5 per cent. of all UK retail sales by 2004. However, the issues are also complex—no simple answers exist. Competing and contradictory interest groups represent concerns on either side of the argument.
It is all very well for Liberal Democrats Members to represent one set of interests in the House while Liberal Democrats locally represent different interest groups with contradictory policies, but the official Opposition, like the Government, require a joined-up policy. Commentators on these matters—the Liberal Democrats in particular—suffer from a lack of intellectual honesty or consistency that verges on the hypocritical. On the one hand, they are concerned that prices charged by supermarkets are too high in comparison with those of Europe and the United States; on the other, any suggestion that a new entrant to the market might force prices down raises concern about damage to town centres and smaller retailers.
If the supermarkets charge prices that do not drive out smaller stores, they will make larger profits which the Labour Government will deem too great. If they cut their prices, they will be accused of being predators. We need a balanced approach to enable competition to flourish, to allow the economies of scale enjoyed by the supermarkets to be passed on to the consumer and to enable farmers to be paid a decent price for their produce. We also need policies that enable our town centres to maintain a critical mass of viable shops and that protect an ever-dwindling stock of unspoilt countryside.
There are two pairs of competing policy objectives. One pair—lower prices for consumers and better rewards for farmers—benefits from greater competition. The other pair—protection of our town centres and rural areas—may be harmed by competition. How can the different political parties handle that dilemma? Labour, with its deep-rooted misunderstanding of capitalism and the free market, is subjecting the supermarkets to a battering because of what the Government regard as unacceptable profits. A commission, taking evidence in public, will judge the supermarket industry's profits, effectively returning us to the prices and incomes policies of the 1970s and sending the industry a signal not to be too profitable, innovative or efficient.
Meanwhile, Labour also let it be known that deals can be done behind the scenes to assist particular companies. A sherry party will be held for Wal-Mart, or a meeting with Formula One. That must never become the way in which the British Government do, or are seen to do, business. The Minister says that no planning guarantees were given and that planning was not even discussed at that meeting, but the mystery still remains. If planning was not discussed, what was discussed? As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) says, such meetings are unusual. In order to set minds at rest, will the Minister set out precisely what was discussed at the meeting? Only if he does that can we be sure that the Prime Minister is not just hiding behind careful words.

Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman please take this comment from me with the seriousness with which I make it? It is galling and hugely irritating to sit across from him and hear a lecture about trivial issues. My experience of the city of Lancaster is that the Conservative Government wreaked absolute havoc. That is a situation from which we are desperately struggling to recover. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the serious issues rather than nonsense about sherry parties.

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. I have said that this is not the simplistic debate that the Liberal spokesman tried to present it as. There are


competing concerns. Consumers want low prices and choice in supermarkets. Delivering that often means damage to the environment from the construction of out-of-town shopping centres. The competition provided by the supermarkets damages small retailers in the town centres. It is a question of balance. There is not a simple answer.

Mr. Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why out-of-town food shopping increased by 50 per cent. in five years but we still have high prices in the supermarkets? The policy of the free market was given a fair wind. The market was let rip. Planning was ripped up. We allowed the supermarkets to do exactly what they wanted, yet we still had higher prices than on the continent when the Conservatives left office.

Mr. Gibb: It is worrying when Ministers have such a simplistic understanding. The Minister is confusing the comparison between prices in large out-of-town supermarkets in Europe and America and in Britain with the comparison between prices in out-of-town supermarkets and prices in town centres. If supermarkets had not been allowed to develop, there would not have been the huge falls in prices that have occurred in the past
20 to 25 years. That is a fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Yes it is. Everyone knows that supermarkets have delivered lower prices and greater choice. That is their great attraction. That is why they make money and why they have displaced many of our independent smaller retailers in town centres. People do not go to out-of-town shopping centres to pay higher prices. The question is whether the falls in prices that the supermarkets have delivered are big enough. Have prices fallen sufficiently, compared to Europe and the United States? The Minister should understand that question.

Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can take my hon. Friend back to the famous sherry party at No. 10 Downing street. He will know that there are only two kinds of meeting in Government circles. One is an official meeting at which civil servants take minutes, and the other is a political meeting at which difficult political decisions are taken, no civil servants are present and there are no minutes. It might be interesting to know whether the meeting was political or non-political. If it was official, why can we not see a copy of the minutes?

Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The problem is that we are prising from the Government the truth about the meeting on a piecemeal basis—a briefing to the press, a statement in a debate on a Liberal Opposition day. We need a categorical statement of precisely what happened. It would be better if it were delivered by the Prime Minister himself in this Chamber but, if we cannot have that, will the Minister say what precisely was discussed at the meeting and whether it was official and minutes were taken? If minutes were taken, can they be published?

Mr. Matthew Taylor: We will not disagree on the last point, but will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he prefers maintenance of the town centres and the environment to developing competition? He said that it was a complex issue and that there was a balance to be struck. Asda, or at least someone in Asda, has argued that

it could cut prices if it were allowed to develop superstores in competition with local monopolies in the south. Is it Conservative policy to protect the town centre and the environment and say no, or to say that competition to reduce prices is the priority so such developments should be allowed?

Mr. Gibb: Our policy is clearly set out in planning policy guidance 6. It is to help small business. That was our policy, and it remains our policy. The Liberal Democrats try to resolve the policy dilemma that I set out in their time-honoured fashion by saying one thing to one constituency and the opposite to another. They tell consumer groups that they want more competition to reduce prices, and the rural lobby that they want fewer supermarkets and less competition. They tell environmentalists that they oppose new supermarket developments, but to consumers in Yeovil the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will say nothing against a new supermarket development. That is Liberal policy in a nutshell.

Mr. McNulty: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that will remain his policy? I ask only because he said of another policy:
We believe that we are right in our view, but we may not be. We are not arrogant, and if we are proved to be categorically wrong, we shall change our policy. It is irrelevant whether one person in society believes that we are wrong. What matters is whether we are wrong."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1999; c. 659.]
Will the policy change? Do those remarks represent the thrust of his policy formulation?

Mr. Gibb: We are not an arrogant party. We have a firm view about the euro, if I may digress. Our position at the next general election is that we will not take Britain into the single currency. Our policy for the general election after that will be decided nearer the time. That is a sensible, pragmatic approach to policy.
Neither the Labour nor the Liberal approach is acceptable in dealing with these difficult issues. Our approach, as it was in government, is one of balance. We want more competition to bring down prices and increase choice, and so that supermarkets have to compete with one another in their relationships with suppliers and farmers. However, as Conservatives, we understand that we live on a small and crowded island and that ever-more building and development are not sustainable ad infinitum. That is why the previous Government introduced PPG6 to slow the growth of out-of-town shopping development and ease pressure on the environment and town centres. That should remain the policy of the British Government, with no added codicils of ex-statutory, intramural deals for favoured companies. That balance is the right approach. I hope that no one will take any notice of the Liberal Democrats, whose disingenuous approach lacks integrity and damages the body politic as much as it damages them.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have been a critic of supermarkets for 10 years. On 9 December, I laid out my reasons in a poorly attended Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) confused me because he seemed to say that


we should not refer the problem of price rigging in supermarkets to what is now called the Competition Commission because that would interfere with the free market. However, we have a cartel of the four biggest supermarkets and his Government were to blame for that situation. One of the heads of the cartel is a Conservative Member, so we can understand why the Conservatives do not want the supermarkets to be examined by the Competition Commission. If I am wrong, he can intervene.
The growth in the power of the supermarkets has come at the expense of everyone else. We have heard the argument about small shops, which is difficult. My constituency had the sense to ensure that its centre was in a good state of repair before the out-of-town supermarkets came on the scene, so we still have a thriving city centre. That did not happen in some cities.
The British public love the supermarket—let us not kid ourselves about that; that is why I asked the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) whether the Liberals were in favour of supermarkets. One has only to go round supermarkets to see that people look on going to supermarkets as a day out. That is not my view, although I do go to supermarkets. Indeed, on Sunday, I shall be opening the celebrations for the 100th anniversary of Morrisons at my local store in Carlisle—unless of course the staff read this speech. The reality is that the British public like supermarkets and politicians have to accept that. The Government's planning policies are strong enough to preserve what is left of our city centres, although devastation has taken place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) pointed out.
Some of the information that is sent to Members of Parliament worries me. In March, we all received a briefing from the British Retail Consortium; it was called "Supermarkets' Prices and Profits—Myth and Reality", but most of it was myth. We were asked to phone the consortium if we had any queries. I pointed out that some of the figures in the briefing on competition with continental supermarkets were not quite right, because there is no VAT on food in the United Kingdom, but there is in France, Germany or wherever. I asked for some figures. The reply was, "Yes, of course." I waited for three months until June and rang the consortium again to ask for the figures, but was told, "We are very sorry, we don't have the resources." The British Retail Consortium does not have the resources to provide my answer. I was told that I should get my civil servants to find the information.
I pay credit to The Sunday Times for its work on supermarkets, and for exposing the fact that we are paying too much for our food. The idea that, if supermarkets charged less, the farmers would be paid less is nonsense. Supermarkets push down payments to suppliers as far as they can to increase their profits. Supermarket profits are extremely high, so I have no fear that the supplier would be paid less.

Dr. Stoate: Not only do purchasers force down prices, but they have told farmers in my constituency that, if they do not like the prices that they are offered, the purchasers

will buy produce from abroad. They do not care about the deprivation and difficulty caused by their forcing down of farm prices for my constituents.

Mr. Martlew: I can give another example. Ten years ago, 68 per cent. of the price of a pint of milk in the supermarket—now it would probably be a litre—went to the farmer. Today, it is only 56 per cent. and the price has probably dropped in real terms. Supermarkets are screwing the suppliers and taking advantage of a monopoly.

Mr. Andrew Love: They are screwing the consumers.

Mr. Martlew: As my hon. Friend says, they are screwing the consumer as well. Considering how much the average family spends in supermarkets, if we can get supermarket pricing policy right, it would be the equivalent of a penny or tuppence off income tax. We should be doing that.

Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way about milk marketing, why has his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry taken so long to release the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque?

Mr. Martlew: I was one of those Members of Parliament who opposed the breaking up of the milk marketing boards under the Conservative Government. That Government are to blame for the current situation.
Wal-Mart concerns me. It may be necessary to bring in someone from abroad to break up the cartel, but I have worries about Wal-Mart. It has more than 2,000 stores in America; not one of them is unionised. In fact, some people have been sacked because they tried to form trade unions. I understand that Wal-Mart went to the courts in America to ask for exemption from the minimum wage. I am sure that, in his reply to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us that, if the company were to try to do that in this country, the Government would not accept it.
Asda is part of the cartel, but it has a good record with its employees. I hope that, in the event of a takeover, Wal-Mart will maintain that good relationship, retain the terms and conditions of the work force and continue to co-operate with the GMB—I know that the union is prepared to work with Wal-Mart. We will not tolerate in this country the sorts of practices that Wal-Mart has followed in the United States.
There is a major problem with supermarkets that Parliament has not yet addressed. Many of our constituents use supermarkets and they are being exploited. We must break the cartel because, if we do not, it will continue to advance. It is not a question of allowing the supermarkets to have a particular market share; if we do not put the brakes on, we will find that, in four or five years, the growth in supermarkets will have continued, competition will be less and the suppliers and the public will be worse off.

Mr. James Gray: I am pleased to participate in this important debate. The Liberal Democrat tradition in Supply day debates is to choose the least


significant subject imaginable in which no one else is even slightly interested. However, the issue of supermarkets, the food in supermarkets and the future of food retailing is centrally important to us all.
Regardless of what one may say about town centres, village shops and the detrimental effects of the supermarket revolution, the truth is that we all use supermarkets. I challenge hon. Members who are present in the Chamber to say that they do not visit supermarkets—or perhaps it is a wife, a husband or a servant in some cases. [Interruption.] There is not a single person in this nation who does not use supermarkets.
For example, 88,000 people in the town of Chippenham go through supermarket checkouts every month—and Chippenham has a population of 30,000. It has three supermarkets, yet 88,000 people visit Safeway alone. Sainsbury and Somerfield presumably have a similar number of customers. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have been able to give the rather dull faces on the Government Benches a little innocent amusement. In order to set the record straight, I make it absolutely clear that I shop at Safeway and Sainsbury in my constituency.

Mr. Drew: Not your servant.

Mr. Gray: That is precisely my point.
When it comes to environmental issues—the same argument applies to supermarkets as to the use and building of motorways, the cost of road building and traffic congestion—the more self-righteous among us, whom we often find come from the Liberal Democrat Benches, love to claim the moral high ground. They say, "We believe in village shops and we believe in preserving the high street. We decry what has happened with regard to supermarkets across the nation, we decry the motorways that allow people to get to the supermarkets and the construction of parking facilities. We are into bicycles, bobble hats and high streets." The truth is that the Liberal Democrats use supermarkets as much as the rest of us, and they use motorways to get there just like we do. Pretending that, somehow or other, they are cleaner than clean and that we are the bad guys for using those facilities demonstrates how two-faced the Liberal Democrats are.
The truth is that hon. Members on both sides of the House are absolutely determined to do what we can to support our rural areas and village shops—and they are thriving in every village in my constituency that has them. The communities are vibrant and living, and villages that have lost their small shops are poorer as a result. We are all determined to do what we can to support the high streets—or what is left of them. We are doing an enormous amount in Malmesbury in my constituency to ensure that the vibrant high street remains. It would be foolish to suggest that any Member of Parliament from any political party is not committed to that useful aim.
However, that does not mean—as several luddite speeches have suggested—that supermarket shopping is somehow a bad thing. It plainly is not, and the people who voted for us use supermarkets an enormous amount.
As we heard earlier, 86 per cent. of all food shopping is done in supermarkets. The average weekly shop in the United Kingdom is six supermarket bags weighing 84 lb. That represents a significant change in the way in which

we run our lives, and to try to ignore it or to argue that it is a bad thing gives the wrong impression to those who will read our debate later.

Mr. Gibb: Does my hon. Friend think it odd that the leader of the Liberal party did not oppose the development of a supermarket in his constituency on a site that was of particular interest because it was mentioned in a Thomas Hardy book, yet his spokesman in the Chamber today is antagonistic to all supermarket development?

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He points out a curious anomaly in the attitudes of Liberal Democrats across the nation. Earlier, I had occasion to mention the fact that it was Liberal Democrat district councils that allowed superstore developments. The Liberal Democrats are proud of how many district councils they control, and those are the very councils—for example, in my constituency—that allow out-of-town shopping centres, but at the same time give lip service to supporting the high street.
It is interesting to note that although in Newbury the Liberal Democrat district council turned down the application by Vodafone, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) apparently supports it. The Liberal Democrats are all over the place.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I should like to place it on record that not only do I not wear a bobble hat, but the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in my constituency has opposed two major supermarket developments recently because of worries about damage to Richmond town centre. One of those applications was won on appeal—the Government opposed the council's decision.

Mr. Gray: I apologise, of course, if I slurred the hon. Lady by suggesting that she might wear a bobble hat, a smock or open-toed sandals. I am happy to accept her assurance that she wears none of those things.
The hon. Lady was not in the Chamber earlier when we spoke about Harrogate. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), from her own Benches, denied that an out-of-town shopping centre had been built on a green-field site in Harrogate. Liberal Democrat-controlled Harrogate district council gave planning permission for a Sainsbury supermarket in Rippon and a Morrisons superstore on a green-field site in Harrogate.
In Chippenham, the Liberal Democrat-controlled district council gave planning permission for a Sainsbury and a Safeway. There was no question of going to appeal or of turning down the application and leaving it to the Secretary of State to allow it; the district council was delighted and welcomed the development. However, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Chamber bad-mouths supermarkets as though we all hate them. That is not the truth.
The opening remarks from the Liberal Democrats went no way at all to addressing the problems that our town centres face. My experience in my area is that Liberal Democrat policies are responsible for killing off town centres. For example, just outside my constituency in Bath, the Liberal Democrats have introduced sky-high


parking charges, which have led directly to a 7 per cent. slump in trade in Bath. That is an example of Liberal Democrat concern for our town centres.
In Chippenham, a small market town with a few town-centre shops, we have free parking for an hour. I welcome that, as it brings people in from the countryside to shop in the high street. The Liberal Democrats apparently propose to introduce parking charges in Chippenham and suggest that we might have a park-and-ride scheme in a town of 30,000 people. It is all very self-righteous, politically correct Liberal Democratism, but it will kill the high street in Chippenham. I challenge them to say what they would do to support the high streets.
This is an important debate, but so far it has not been characterised by a real desire to address the problems facing us in planning, transport and the other issues associated with supermarkets. The debate has been characterised by attempts to achieve the moral high ground and in a luddite way to express dislike of supermarkets. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who is sadly not in his place any more, made some outspoken remarks against supermarkets. I should be interested to know, when the Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food winds up, whether he uses a supermarket, whether it is an out-of-town supermarket and how he gets there. I would lay pretty good money that he or his wife do use a supermarket. The important thing is not to make party political points, but to deal with the marked change in taste that has occurred across the nation over the past 20 years or so.
When I was a child growing up in Scotland, my mother went down the high street with her shopping bag. She went into two or three different retailers and bought a loaf here and a lump of meat there. My grandfather was a butcher in Coatbridge: he was a small retailer and people went to his shop to buy meat. They do not do so today. They go to the supermarket and buy their 80 lb of shopping in six bags.
We must address these issues, and central to them is the subject of transport. It is not just a question of where to put supermarkets. I suspect that the market is nearing saturation point because of the large number that were built when we were in power—saturation may not be the right word. Most towns are served by supermarkets. A bigger issue is transport. The average customer at Tesco picks up six bags weighing 80 lbs. The only way in which people can shop at a supermarket is by motor car. It is nonsense to suggest that they go by bicycle, as Liberal Democrats would, or by bus.
My constituents who shop in Safeway and Sainsbury all use the car—or have done so up to now. It is apparently the Government's policy to make it more and more difficult for my rural constituents to use their car to go to the supermarket. They have put up petrol prices, which have gone through the roof. More than anyone else, that affects the less well off, the low-wage earners in rural areas, old people and the disabled. The Government are now talking about congestion charging. That would be helpful for a fat cat or a two-Jag Prescott, who would not mind congestion charging because such people could afford the £5 a day to get into central London. However, it would matter to an old person in my constituency who has to get to the supermarket.
Incidentally, I do not know why we need congestion charging if new Labour VIPs are allowed to use bus lanes to get into the city in their Jaguars. That is what road charging and doing away with supermarkets is all about—getting other people off the road so that they can drive quickly through, as the Prime Minister did the other day in the bus lane on the M4. That is the truth about these people who pay lip service to environmental benefits. They want to continue their way of life and what they are doing, and do not want other people to get in the way while they do it.
We are told that the congestion charge may be £5 a day in London, and £1,000 a year for workplace parking in London. A fat cat in a Jaguar will be happy to pay £5 a day to get the plebs off the road and £1,000 a year for parking, but people on a low wage living in my constituency need their cars to get to the supermarket.
Most of the debate has ignored the realities of modern life in modern Britain, which requires people to use their motor cars to get to the supermarket. We have also failed to recognise the good bits about supermarkets. Almost everyone who has spoken has had a go at supermarkets. They suggest that they are bad and that they are pariahs. They say that they are awful, that they do not like them and that they like high streets. Of course we like high streets, but there is a huge amount that is good about supermarkets, such as the quality and choice of food. We demand strawberries on Christmas day and exotic fruits from the tropics not as a special treat, but as an everyday part of modern living. We buy pre-packed salads—we do not wash lettuce any more. We demand high-quality food in beautiful condition.

Mr. Love: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech in support of supermarkets. What attitude will he strike when the next application for the development of a supermarket in his constituency comes along and his constituents are opposed to it?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman brings me on to my next point, which addresses that question. In the past 20 or so years, the number of out-of-town supermarkets has significantly increased. I welcome that to a large degree, because they have brought in their wake a great many other benefits, such as new roads, new housing and new schools. However, we are now nearing the point at which we have the right number of supermarkets supplying the right number of people.
In the town of Malmesbury in my constituency, a site is available on which Tesco is trying to get permission to build a new supermarket. Malmesbury is five miles from Chippenham, which already has two gigantic superstores, and three miles from Tetbury. There is a huge Tesco store just outside Tetbury. The people of Malmesbury, where there is a vibrant high street, would be much better off without a new supermarket. [Laughter.] I do not know why Liberal Democrats find that funny. I am simply saying that my constituency has a worthwhile supply of supermarkets. My constituents use them, but we do not want any more, because of the environmental damage that would be caused and also because, if we allowed too much competition, at least one of the supermarkets involved would probably go out of business. We would then face the problem of what to do with the site.
So far, this has been a one-sided debate. The planning issue should be about balance. It should be about supplying what all our constituents want, while also


preserving the countryside, preserving the high street and preserving the village store. The careful and subtle balance contained in planning policy guidance note 6, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when I was a special adviser to him, is precisely what we want in planning terms.
We want to supply the British people with the shopping experience that they now want. Incidentally, I heard on the radio this morning that there is talk of shoppers' actually paying to go shopping. My instinct would be to pay not to have to go shopping, but apparently that is the shopping experience that people want. On the one hand, we must give people what they want and need; on the other hand, we must have a balanced planning policy that protects our environment, saves our high streets and preserves our village stores.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal did with PPG6. I also welcome the assurance that the Government have given today and in earlier debates that they will continue the carefully balanced policy introduced by my right hon. Friend in considering future supermarket developments.

Mr. David Lepper: I welcome the Liberal Democrats' choice of subject. Let me say at the outset that I have absolutely no interest in knocking the Liberal Democrats. In my constituency, Labour came first in the European elections; the Liberal Democrats came fourth, just about managing to beat the United Kingdom Independence party. I am afraid that any of my colleagues who are expecting to hear criticism of the Liberal Democrats should wait to hear another speaker.
In the past, I have hesitated to speak in debates on planning issues. Until last month, my wife chaired the Brighton and Hove council planning committee, and I thought it wise for just one member of the family to speak on such issues. My wife has now taken another role locally, and I am freed from that constraint.
It is certainly time that the Competition Commission investigated the whole question of grocery retailing and supermarket prices. We need an investigation, and I think that we need international league tables as well. Such tables would show us how much goods bought in this country would cost us in similar stores around the world, and would demonstrate the extent to which British shoppers are or are not being ripped off.
Having said that, let me make it clear that I do not wish to criticise either Liberal Democrats or supermarkets. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made an important point about the need to distinguish between supermarkets and superstores.
The motion, the Government amendment and, indeed, comments that we have heard from Conservative Members today have a common theme: the need to ensure that development policies are consistent, especially in regard to out-of-town development. I welcome the assurance that the Minister gave me in reply to a question—last November, I think—that he had no plans to revise PPG 6 on town centres and retail development, and I welcome the further assurance that we have been given this afternoon. I was therefore surprised at the story published recently by The Guardian about relaxation of

the rules. Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), with its patchwork of press cuttings, I had—in my ignorance—no idea of the extent to which the story had permeated. None the less, the story in The Guardian surprised me, although it should not have done. From the reassurances that we have been given today, the story proves to have been yet another of The Guardian's own-goals in stirring up tales of U-turns by the Government.
I have the honour of being chairman of the all-party group on town centre management issues. The group has more than 200 members, comprised of Members of this place and of the other place, and of all political parties. In membership numbers, it is rivalled only by the parliamentary beer group—as we now have to call it, rather than beer club.
The support enjoyed by the all-party group on town centre management demonstrates the genuine concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the future of our town centres, not only as places in which to shop and work, but in which to live and enjoy our leisure time. Moreover, the concern is not only for major cities or conurbations—such as Brighton and Hove, part of which I represent, with a population of a quarter of a million people—but about our smaller market towns.
I therefore welcome the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley)—who is not in the Chamber—which led to a recent report by the urban and economic development group on revitalising four small towns in his Shropshire constituency. I am sure that there are other examples of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, taking similar initiatives.
As the Minister said, next week, Lord Rogers will unveil the urban task force's report on regenerating our town and city centres. I am sure that we all eagerly await the report, to see what ideas it has on reversing the drift to the suburbs, to the edges of towns, and on to green-field sites—which, unfortunately, characterises so much of what happened, in the 1980s, under the previous Government.
I do not know what Lord Rogers's report will say about those issues, but know that, earlier this year, his summary of responses to the urban task force's prospectus stated:
a number of respondents agreed with the House of Commons Environment Select Committee proposals for sequential tests, where developers are required to demonstrate that they have exhaustively examined the possibilities of developing any available brownfield land before being allowed to go ahead with green field development.
I hope that all of us will endorse that position, on which the Minister has given us reassurances.

Mr. McNulty: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attempt to rubbish the sequential test in PPG 6 by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) owed more to his ignorance about planning than any lack of integrity in the test?

Mr. Lepper: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I have already described my own humility in planning debates, although my wife was able to advise me on the issues. We should perhaps avoid lurching into addressing issues—[Interruption.] I do not criticise my hon. Friend—when we do not fully understand all of them.
I should like to deal with the issue of the difference between superstores and supermarkets. We have to acknowledge the important role that food retailers, with supermarkets, are able to play as partners in regenerating our town centres. They have played an important role in many of the important town management schemes, not only by helping to enhance the appeal of centres—in which they are already located, and to which they decide to locate—and creating jobs, but by ensuring that they very often act as a lever for other funding sources to help to regenerate those town centres. Sainsbury, for example, claims that its active involvement in, and support for, town management schemes has helped local authorities across the country to lever in more than £300 million of additional funding from central Government, Europe and private investors.
I have no particular remit for Sainsbury. In fact I actively opposed its plans for a 38,000 sq ft supermarket on a brown-field site as it was a completely inappropriate development. I am glad to say that the inspectors upheld the decision of the local council to oppose that application. While acknowledging that the proprietors of supermarkets can play an important role as private partners in regenerating our town centres, we must be aware of some of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon.
There is a genuine fear that the entry of Wal-Mart into Britain might well be followed by yet another huge retailer. Will K-Mart be next? Will we have the same experience that I have not seen at first hand, but have heard about from visitors from the United States where some small towns have Wal-Mart at one end of what was once the main street, K-Mart at the other and absolutely no retail development in between? The assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government do not want the same situation to develop here lead us to be optimistic.
Finally, I welcome the proposals in the Government's modernising planning documents to which the Minister referred and the pilot schemes in Bexley and elsewhere for one-stop shops providing assistance to developers submitting applications. I also welcome the proposals for mediation in the planning process to avoid the confrontation which often results from planning applications. I particularly welcome the underlying theme of the Government's modernising planning agenda for local development-led plans initiating the planning process in certain areas, rather than planning being a reactive process, as has often been the case in the past. Although there will be changes in the planning process—and not before time—we can all be assured that the Government are determined to stand by PPG6 and the safeguards that it provides.

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow my near neighbour the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) who spoke largely in support of the Liberal Democrat motion. I very much hope that he will join us in the Lobby this evening. I note that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is abstaining tonight, so the Government obviously have some sympathy with our motion.
Let me pick up on one point. There was considerable approval among Labour Members for what the Minister said and he gave us some welcome assurances. I want to be clear in my mind that his speech reflects the view of the entire Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) said that there were two ways of looking at the issue. The part of the Government that seeks to protect the environment puts that foremost, whereas another part of the Government says that lower prices, competition and letting the market rip may be a good thing. That view is epitomised by the DTI. The Government need to make it clear which line they are taking.
That is the case not just on this issue. On genetically modified foods, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for the Environment are cautious, while the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister are carefree and keen to push GM technology as fast as possible. The Deputy Prime Minister introduces bus lanes and the Prime Minister drives down them in his car. There are differences in the Government. We need clarification that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning was speaking on behalf not just of his Ministry, but of the whole Government, including the Department of Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give us that assurance.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): If it enables the hon. Gentleman to get on to the important part of his speech, I am happy to assure him that every Minister who speaks at the Dispatch Box speaks on behalf of the Government, unless they say that they are speaking for themselves.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that clarification. The important aspect of the debate is to tie the Government down, so I am glad to have heard that.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that people love their supermarkets and want to shop at them. People also want their corner shop to remain open. Finding the balance is important. The hon. Gentleman rather spoilt his case about supermarkets being wonderful by then saying that Chippenham high street had to be protected and he did not want a supermarket in his constituency. Never mind. We can gloss over that inconsistency.
Supermarkets bring benefits to the consumer, including lower prices—in some respects—ease of shopping and one-stop shopping. We know about those benefits, but there are disbenefits as well. The Government must ensure balance and should regulate when appropriate. Supermarkets have reduced the competition, particularly for groceries. The Conservatives mentioned a figure of 86 per cent. Village shops have closed around the country as a consequence of competition from supermarkets. That has happened in my constituency in villages such as Kingston. The effect of the concentration of ownership is like a cartel.
The Conservatives are also inconsistent in opposing any investigation into supermarkets and then complaining that farmers are not getting a fair deal as a consequence of the prices that supermarkets pay for their produce. That is


why we support an investigation into supermarkets. I commend the good work done by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on that.
Supermarkets can be ruthless. A Sainsbury store opened in Newhaven three or four years ago. It is a very popular and well-frequented addition to the area that people welcome. When it opened, there was a petrol station, which was already struggling, within sight. The petrol station opened 24 hours a day to try to make a living. The supermarket then opened its petrol station 24 hours a day and put up a big hoarding opposite to attract customers. The independent petrol station went out of business and, lo and behold, the supermarket reverted to its normal hours for petrol sales. Supermarkets are ruthless. They are interested not in serving the public, but in boosting their profits. Governments should always remember the down sides of supermarkets as well as their benefits when they are regulating.
Supermarkets are extending their range of wares, not just in food, which was always their central reason for existing, but in other areas of retail. Supermarkets in my constituency now have chemists and sell clothes, toys and videos. All that attacks independent retailers elsewhere in the high street to the detriment of the whole high street.
Lewes has a successful and vibrant town centre. Many people come into the town to work and there is a big work force at county hall, the police headquarters and the health authority. People go to the town centre to do their shopping at lunch time. Yet even in such a successful town centre, there is nowhere outside the supermarket that sells half a pound of butter. If the supermarkets expand to sell clothes, toys and products that chemists sell, I wonder how long the independent retailers will exist.
I hope that the Government will follow through their planning policy and see what they can do to protect smaller shops. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) about business rates is important, and I am sorry that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning rather skated over that. The Government's amendment refers to the viability of town centres, so it was a legitimate point to raise. The Government should obtain the right balance by tipping it slightly in favour of smaller and independent shops, perhaps more than has been the case so far.
I was opposed for many reasons to the extension of Sunday trading. One consequence of that has been that the one day a week when small independent shops were able to make some money without competition from supermarkets has now been eroded. Many of them took more money on Sunday than the rest of the week put together and have now lost that opportunity. I regret that.
I should like the Government to consider car park charging for out-of-town shopping. That was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell and is something that I support. The DETR was considering that as part of its transport White Paper until No. 10 stopped it in its tracks. Many people, quite erroneously, decide to shop where parking is free. They object to paying 20p to park in a town centre but they will drive 25 miles to an out-of-town supermarket where parking is free. [Interruption.] I can give the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) examples of that from my constituency. My constituents write to me and say that they will shop in Uckfield, for example, which is 10 miles

away, rather than pay 20p to shop in Lewes. Therefore, people do make such decisions, however illogical they may be.
It is time that we reflected the environmental costs of out-of-town shopping with car park charging, and I should like the Government to consider that carefully. It is not Liberal Democrat policy, but I would go further by making it difficult for supermarkets and other out-of-town stores to refund that parking ticket other than by lower prices, so that people are aware that they are making an environmental contribution by buying that ticket.
I do not want to be all negative about supermarkets because, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and others have said, they have benefits and we need a balanced debate. One function of supermarkets is as a last resort to help the consumer when the Government of the day have failed the consumer, and to articulate public opinion in the way that the Government sometimes do not do. It was supermarkets which led the campaign, following pressure from their customers, for dolphin-friendly tuna some years ago. The Government did not intend to do anything about that in a free market, but the supermarkets traced that back and tuna in supermarkets is now almost exclusively dolphin friendly.
The supermarkets are now doing the same thing with regard to GM foods. In the words of the Minister, GM foods are not necessary, as he told the Environmental Audit Committee. Those words were echoed by the Minister for the Environment. The public at large are not interested in GM foods. They do not want to buy them. But the Government largely stand on the sidelines—not in the driving seat, to use the Minister's words—and rely on the supermarkets to deal with the problem. Therefore, supermarkets are having to respond to their customers. They have to trace back the ingredients because the World Trade Organisation, the Government and the EU have failed to require the segregation of supplies of, for example, soya. The supermarkets are having to take it upon themselves to fill the gap left by the Government.
I hope that, as a consequence of the debate, the Government will stick to their planning policies and make it clear that there is no further room for out-of-town shopping, which will be to the detriment of the environment if it goes ahead; will make sure that they introduce measures to help smaller stores and high streets, and will resist any measures from the Conservatives or anybody else to let the market rip in the way that we saw during the 18 to 20 years of Conservative Government.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to take part in this debate because I like shopping and I like food. I go to a very large supermarket at least once a week, and it is highly convenient for loading up the car with tins of beans and getting the shopping in as quickly as possible. There is a certain quality and range of food, and shops are alongside the supermarket. Visiting the chemist, optician or travel agent, or getting money out of the cash machine, is easy.
The problem is that it is all so boring. The supermarket is in a large shed and, although there is an enormous variety of food and other wares, it is all pre-packed, dressed up and bland. I can have strawberries at Christmas if I want—which I do not—and food from all around the world, including green beans from Kenya. Frankly, who wants all that?


In contrast, when I go to the glorious city of Lancaster and walk its historic and beautiful streets, I can go into the shops and have a unique experience. In the marvellous market town of Garstang, I can buy local cheese, local sausage and local fish, and it is a world removed from my local supermarket. In the marvellous town of Poulton-le-Fylde, I can buy local produce from long-standing traders who know their customers and the niches in which they operate. It is a wholly different experience from bashing round the supermarket with a loaded trolley.
Supermarkets have their place, and that will continue. However, we must reverse the devastation that supermarkets have induced in some of our glorious market towns.
There is no easy way out of the problem, but we must find one. I reject absolutely some of the dreadful complacency of Conservative Members. This is an urgent issue of concern about the quality of life in our country, our local economies and, particularly, the rural economy. The previous Government's desperate attention to letting the market rip failed to reflect the importance of local producers, and let them down. When local producers abroad work co-operatively to develop local marketing strategies, they are able to gain power and influence in the market place that can redress the balance with supermarkets. We need to achieve balance. We must market excellent local produce well and attract people into market towns to buy the unique products that are there. We must help producers to work together to compete more effectively.
The Government's tightening of planning restrictions has had a tangible effect in my constituency. In Poulton-le-Fylde, we have been able to see off two separate applications for supermarkets that would have devastated an important town centre, and we have our fingers crossed for the future.
Fiscal issues are also important. I agree that we should impose a parking levy on supermarkets. If we want to cut down on commuter parking by charging large employers for their car parks, we should put the same pressure on out-of-town supermarkets. We should also consider changes in business rates.
We must try to work in partnership with the supermarkets. They should give much more commitment to town-centre development and recognise their responsibilities. I reject the idea of some Conservative Members that we should all get in our cars, get on the motorway and get round the supermarket as quickly as possible. There may sometimes be a place for doing that, but we need to attract people into town centres and we cannot do that by letting the motor car rip in historic cities, because that would devastate our city centres and dramatically reduce the quality of people's experience there.
I have heard nothing today about internet or local delivery services, which are starting to develop. We must attract people into city centres via public transport. At the height of the rush hour in Lancaster—which is especially bad on a Friday afternoon, with very congested streets—I took a train, accompanied by only six people, on a 10-minute journey that would have taken three quarters of an hour by car. We need greatly to improve the prospects for public transport.
Many hon. Members will, like me, be involved in initiatives with business, the farming community and local newspapers. In my constituency, we have developed the Wyre brunch and celebrated marvellous roast beef, glorious pies and wonderful fish and cheese. We did not have any beans. We need to move way beyond local initiatives and niche marketing to get more on a par with our friends and competitors in Europe.
Producers in Europe play a much bigger part in the marketplace, and European city centres are vibrant and celebratory places where people live. We need a different emphasis to the way that we shop in, and experience, our city centres. We also need to change the way that we use our supermarkets. They are an important part of life, but they cannot form the whole of shopping. I hope that the investigation by the Competition Commission will encourage the break-up of the dominant position of supermarkets, give more people a chance to compete and ensure that town centres take their grand place in the future urban renaissance.

Mr. Stephen Day: I shall make some brief remarks about out-of-town shopping and its effects on my constituency. Some of the comments that I have heard this afternoon—I shall not identify individuals—have been silly party political points. The problem has been around for a while, although I recognise that the Conservative Government, in their early years, were responsible for planning permissions for many out-of-town shopping facilities, including two shopping developments just outside the Cheadle constituency. There is one at Handforth Dean, with Marks and Spencer and Tesco, and one at Cheadle Royal, with the John Lewis Partnership and—I forget the other store.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Sainsbury.

Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman has obviously shopped there, which raises another problem that the shopping centres have caused and which I shall address in a moment.
It is silly to start casting blame. I do not disagree with this Government's policy or their recognition of the problems that out-of-town shopping brings, and I am pleased to hear Ministers making such points. However, we should recognise that that policy change was brought about by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), although it unfortunately came too late for my constituency and many other parts of the country. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend visited the main centre in Cheadle to meet local traders. He made a genuine effort to bring publicity to the area to try to help the traders, and we should address practical issues such as that.
The out-of-town centres have had a devastating impact on shopping facilities in the villages of Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Bramhall. They have affected the trade and brought massive traffic movements into the area. Six months ago, I spoke at a ladies luncheon club in Liverpool and I was amazed when the lady in charge of the event, who sat next to me at lunch, told me that she knew my constituency well. I asked her whether she had friends there, and she said, "No, I come to shop at Marks


and Spencer." She came all the way from Merseyside, and she said that many of her friends did, too. I told her that that explained why my local roads are jammed.
It was projected at the time of the public inquiry that the Cheadle Royal site alone would produce 20,000 extra car movements a day by 2000, but we passed that figure some 18 months ago, according to the most recent survey. It is an horrendous experience for the people living in the villages. A lot of traffic passes through village centres that have already been hit by the competition from the big superstores, and that makes those little village centres even more unattractive to shoppers, because they get stuck in traffic jams.
Mistakes were made in planning—I battled against the developments from the word go—but we must face the reality. It is all very well to say what the Conservative Government did or did not do, but we now have a Labour Government. People in my constituency look to the Government to solve their problems, and I ask the Government to do so.
The previous Government's road scheme retained a bypass system to cope with the traffic movements that I have described. One of the first actions of this Government was to cancel it. My constituency is an even worse mess as a direct consequence.

Mr. Bennett: Proposing more road works will not solve the problem. When I was first elected to represent Stockport, one of the worst problems was the so-called Cheadle crawl. A motorway was constructed to solve that problem, but the crawl has returned. More roads simply increase traffic and make problems worse. What should have happened is that the John Lewis group should have put its shop in the centre of Stockport.

Mr. Day: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but a third of the bypass scheme has been built. It attracts more traffic, much of which goes to the airport.
To solve the problems suffered by people and shops in villages as a result of the arrival of out-of-town shopping developments, the roads need to be finished. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said earlier that he wanted to help small village centres. I hope that his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will hear this message: if they want to help the people of Bramhall, Woodford, Cheadle Hulme, Healds Green and all the other places similarly affected, they must give us our bypass back.

Mr. Colin Breed: Although the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), made it clear earlier that he wanted to get away from consensus, a thread of consensus is evident in the contributions from hon. Members of all parties. That shows that how we got to the present situation is less important than where we go from here. The problem has been brought into sharp focus by the Wal-Mart bid, which has made us realise that certain matters must be tackled to ensure that the issue that we have been debating is more controlled in the future than it has been in the past.
The history of the problem goes back about 30 years. It is only fairly recently that we have woken up to the creeping dominance—the stealth dominance—of the

out-of-town supermarkets. The public interest has largely been pushed aside, but it is the only justification for Governments getting involved in the question of competition.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders to make profits. It is not for the Government to undertake to protect businesses, small or otherwise, but neither should they allow businesses to run riot against the perceived public interest.
The public interest was served by the benefits associated with the growth of supermarkets, which is why they became so successful. They provided a variety of products and were cheap, clean, efficient and convenient. They enabled people to switch their shopping habits, and they were pleased to do so.
However, that is now regarded as a slightly false perception. Supermarket prices are not as low as they should be, and high street prices are often comparable. As for choice, the number of shops has fallen after the many closures that have occurred in the high street. In fact, choice in shops is not as large as it is perceived to be. We tend to find only a brand leader and an own-brand product. Most second liners have disappeared off the shelves because manufacturers unable to compete go out of business or become a supermarket's own-brand supplier.
Supermarkets are convenient for many people, but they are becoming less convenient for more people as village stores disappear and as corner shops vanish from housing estates and the suburbs. People without access to a vehicle find it increasingly difficult to get to them.
Relationships with suppliers are changing, threatening the survival of small manufacturers who used to provide materials for all sorts of hardware shops but cannot fulfil a contract for, say, 200,000 buckets. Farmers face problems too. Only this week, one in Cornwall wrote to me, astounded that, having received only £20 per tonne for his potatoes, he found them in his local supermarket, washed and in a plastic bag, on sale for the equivalent of £484 a tonne. We have all heard about calves on sale for 29p.
I was pleased by the Minister's strident support for PPG6, but I hope that it can be strengthened, because the larger supermarkets are exploiting some weaknesses. We should move away from so-called planning gain, when supermarket development is allowed if new roads or leisure facilities come with it. The guidance is muddled, and it should be much clearer on planning gain, which must not bring a short-term gain in return for a long-term loss.
We have heard of the damage to our high streets and our villages. In the past 10 years, 50,000 businesses have ceased to be. The loss of the village shop—once a social centre and not just the place where people bought their groceries—strikes at the very heart of a small community. Supermarkets have also dominated buying, tending to be able to purchase all the top-grade fruit and vegetables and leaving smaller operations unable to buy the best quality produce. The ability to buy goods produced locally has virtually disappeared. Small operators that used to supply local shops are denied that opportunity by the disappearance of small shops, but they cannot put together the large quantities of produce required to win supermarket contracts.

Mr. Drew: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about planning gain. Does he agree that the sequential


test can be most valuable in that area, allowing us to measure the true costs and benefits of opening a supermarket on a green-field site against the loss to a town centre and smaller shops?

Mr. Breed: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. In the past, not all relevant matters have been taken into account, and some subjective points have not been properly valued.
I do not believe that most people appreciate how big Wal-Mart is. The company serves 90 million customers a week in 3,600 stores, employing nearly 1 million people. With an annual turnover of £90 billion, Wal-Mart is truly a giant. It is already in Germany, and it has approached several British firms, including the furniture retailer MFI. Wal-Mart provides both an opportunity and a threat. It could kick some real competition into our supermarkets, but it would be threatening if it acted as it does elsewhere. If our planning regulations are not strong enough to meet the threat, they should be made stronger.
As several hon. Members have suggested, this is a complex issue. It is a prime example of a matter on which the Government should demonstrate joined-up government thinking.
The issue of food and supermarkets cuts across many areas of policy, including competition, environment, transport and social policy. All those policies need to be truly joined up. The Government must ensure that there is no rift between those who support an outright competition policy to reduce prices to their minimum—without any regard for the environmental and social consequences—and those who want environmental issues to drive our businesses.
The definition of the public interest has to be widened and better understood. The public interest is not served only by the lowest possible price of a tin of baked beans. Predatory pricing legislation also needs to be re-examined. We need to understand that, in trying to create the balance that everyone wants, policies need to be considered in conjunction with one another.
Planning policy is certainly important. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of other people's notebooks. The European cities often ensure that the floor space of large supermarket developments has some relevance to the size of the closest town. We should think about extensions to supermarkets. We may well think that Asda, or Wal-Mart, as it may well become, will go into a lot of new sites, but what about extensions to existing stores? Will we say that, because there is already a supermarket in a certain place, a precedent has been created so the company can build whatever size extension it likes? I hope that we shall ensure that extensions of, say, more than 10 per cent. of the existing floor space are subject to all the same impact studies as a brand new store. Existing stores should not be used as Trojan horses to defeat planning policy guidance.
We have talked about rate relief for small stores and parking charges. We need to support our smaller suppliers and small-scale agriculture and horticulture. I know that the Minister will say that the Government are already doing that, but we need to do more to provide opportunities for local traders. They should not be threatened with closure by trading standards officers, for example, because they have not quite got something right

on a label. Perhaps supermarkets ought to be encouraged to use some of their car parks to allow people with local produce to sell on a Saturday morning. That would not dent their profits very much, and it might give people the opportunity to buy local produce.
Public transport must be made available to all stores. Any new store must demonstrate that public transport to it is available, either because the company will subsidise it or because existing services will be enhanced. Local councils must be given greater powers to restrict hours of trading, especially 24-hour trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) said, Sunday trading has had a major impact on small shops on high streets in small towns.
It was once said many years ago that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers. We have rather sleepwalked into the current situation. There is a real threat that, if we do not get hold of it now, or in the not-too-distant future, and if the likes of Wal-Mart come in and have their way, we could soon have just one shopkeeper to the whole nation.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I will do my best to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. It has been an interesting debate. The supermarkets feel very unloved at the moment. They probably feel less loved, having listened to some of the speeches in the Chamber, than they did before.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that everyone in the Chamber probably shopped in supermarkets. I plead guilty, if that is the issue. I do not use any of the loyalty cards. I did not have them before the election and after the election I made it clear that I did not want to be involved.

Mr. Baker: Just the pledge card.

Mr. Rooker: I carry the pledge card, but not loyalty cards. I am not in the business of giving publicity but I have used all the supermarkets at one time or another. The one I tend to use at present is not in the big four and is probably the nearest thing to a worker's co-operative in this country.
We have heard some interesting speeches. I shall long remember the matter of fact way in which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire explained his shopping arrangements. If he or his wife could not do the shopping, the servant would do it. Perhaps the servant does it when there are six bags weighing 84 lb.
This is not to criticise anyone's contribution, but it was worth coming to the debate to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). At first, I wondered where he was going, but he took us on a heritage trail of the market towns in his constituency and the fine local produce sold there. The one thing that is hard to get in supermarkets is local produce, because of the nature of the food distribution network. Food is moved around the country in lorries that do not carry full weight because they are carrying gas-filled plastic containers to keep food from central distribution centres fresh. The chance of getting local produce is therefore much diminished. If people want local produce, it is better to do what my hon. Friend said and go down the heritage trail of local market towns.
I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said earlier about planning. The position has been made abundantly clear. I understand from some of the interventions of Liberal Democrat Members that they appreciated the firmness with which the policy was set out. There are no changes. Some of the press reporting has been typically inaccurate.
The pattern of food retailing is consumer driven. Supermarkets have responded to demand. They are changing in some ways. They are trying to go back into the city centres that people accuse them of helping to destroy. Developments took place without the need for planning permission in some early enterprise zones. Those developments mean that families can go for a whole day out that does not encompass just the buying of food. My worry is that they buy food that needs to be kept chilled, load up the car, leave it out in the sunshine so that the temperature gets up nicely, and spend the rest of the day at the leisure facilities with children. They then take the food home, put it in the fridge, use it the next day and wonder why they got food poisoning. There is a problem with such expeditions.
The sourcing of produce and the grip of the supermarkets on the supply chain have been mentioned. In some ways, that grip can be used to our advantage. Information and traceability in respect of food safety for modern processed foods and ready prepared meals are crucial. Laboratories and traceability, and the technologists whom supermarkets employ, are all important. That is something that big organisations can provide.
The grip of the system encompasses, for example, supermarkets' contracts with suppliers. I shall not offer any clues as to the produce involved. The supermarket is happy with the price and finds out where the supplier obtains packaging, and then approaches the packaging supplier with a demand for a penny for every tray supplied to the supermarket. I was told of one case in which the number of trays used in a year was 300 million—at a penny a tray, that is £3 million for nothing. Alternatively, the first supplier would be told not to go to that packaging supplier. I hope that the Competition Commission will examine such practices because, in certain circumstances, they might be an abuse of market power. I do not say that that is always the case, but it seemed to be so in the example that I was given.
Contrary to the comments of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), the Government played no role in the referral to the Competition Commission. Anyone would think that the commission had only just been invented, but it used to be the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The referral was from the Director General of Fair Trading. We await with interest the results of that study of the big four. The commission will examine such matters as barriers on entry to the market, including the availability of land, and the way that supermarkets exert their buying power over farmers and their other suppliers.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I am trapped now. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although that referral may be welcome, it was sad that it included a criticism of the planning system by someone who appears not to have a clue about it?

Mr. Rooker: The Government are not getting involved; it is a matter for the competition authorities. The commission was set up to do a job that it was asked to do by this House, under statute. It would not be helpful for me to make any comments other than those that I have made already. I am now duty bound to give way to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Tayor).

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Not everyone would be so fair.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expressed a concern about the competition report. That is why we hope that Ministers will confirm that, whatever the report concludes, the Government are determined to protect land and town centres. I hope that the Minister will also take the opportunity to dissociate the Government from anything that appears to have been said to newspapers on this subject by officials in at least one Department—the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that they did not speak on behalf of the Government but, understandably, they fed the rumours that led to this debate.

Mr. Rooker: I am unable to say more than my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said when he opened the debate. He spoke for the Government, collectively; he set the position out clearly. There will be no attempt by the Government to interfere with that inquiry.
In relation to food, last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set up a small group to consider the food chain initiative; it brought together farmers, manufacturers and retailers. We want food producers to exert more control over a larger part of the food supply chain. I realise of course that someone will say, "Look what happened when they did it with Milk Marque." We await, with interest, the results of the inquiry and the decision. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, MAFF has encouraged collaborative marketing. Compared with some of our European friends, partners and competitors, we do not have a history of such marketing, but it should be possible for farmers and food producers to talk to their neighbours without worrying about competition. It is in everyone's interest that there should be greater collaboration in marketing, food production and food supply.
Some producers worry about that, because they think that we want to force them into co-operative arrangements. That is not our intention. We want them to collaborate so that they can supply and control a larger part of the food chain. That will return added value to the producer. It is what happens in continental Europe and it is wholly to be applauded. Under such a system, there would be a greater chance of achieving wider distribution for some of this country's speciality foods, although there can never be a national supply of speciality, regional foods. However, that is why the initiatives that we have undertaken to try to get our local and regional brand names sanctified and codified in Europe are important to protect those names—

It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to motion No. 3.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet, about to put the Question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was clearly too late. I am absolutely certain that the time had lapsed before I heard any call that the Question be now put. Therefore, I am afraid that the matter must lapse.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I call Mr. Straw.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that has been put to the Speaker's Office, the Clerk and to the Home Secretary relating to the constitutional implications of today's debate. I make no comment about the merit of the order, which closes a loophole in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Parliament can legislate to do what it likes, subject to two considerations which I put before you now. The first is that, under the Bill of Rights, the courts cannot question what we do. Secondly, we have a long tradition under the sub judice rule of not intervening in matters that are before the courts.
It so happens that the order pre-empts a matter that will come to the House of Lords in its judicial capacity on 19 July: whether the order and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are a contravention of the European convention on human rights to which we are bound by the Human Rights Act 1998. That was the view of the court of first instance and it was endorsed by the divisional court. The Lord Chief Justice said:
It seems to me that on the face of it both sections undermine in a blatant and obvious way, the presumption of innocence.
That is the law of the land until the House of Lords considers the matter and issues its judgment. Yesterday, obviously acting on advice, the Home Secretary said:
The Government believe that these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR".—[Official Report, 23 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1172.]
The House is being asked today—this is why I raise the matter as a point of order and not on its merits—to disregard the Lord Chief Justice's judgment. The issue goes even wider than that, because the European Court might hear a case regarding the matter. This is new territory for the House of Commons: we have always respected our relations with the courts, but now there is a new court.
I appreciate that this is a difficult point. I simply suggest that there is a case for adjourning the debate until after 19 July to give Madam Speaker an opportunity to consider the constitutional implications of reaching a view about an order when it is contrary to the law of the land, subject to a House of Lords decision that has not yet been reached. I am grateful to you for listening to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an important question and I hope that you will consider my request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise a point of order at this juncture. I have listened carefully to his comments. From his experience, he may recall that, so far as sub judice is concerned, our rule is that it does not apply to debates on legislation, including subordinate legislation. Therefore, we cannot be prevented from creating new legislation if that is the wish of the House.
As to the constitutionality, that must be a matter for debate rather than determination by the Chair. The House may wish to consider that issue in the course of the debate and decide accordingly.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
I shall be as speedy as I can. When I wind up the debate, I shall try to respond to any points that I have not covered in my opening remarks. Yesterday, I explained the circumstances in which, regrettably, due to an error in the drafting of the 1998 and 1999 continuation orders, parts IVA and IVB of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 had not been in force since 22 March 1998. Today, I am seeking to revive those provisions but only from the day when the order becomes operative, not retrospectively.
Yesterday, I was asked a number of questions by, among others, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the chronology of events that had taken place since the article first came to our attention. It may be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House if I provide more detail.
The article was published in issue 19 of Criminal Law Week on 24 May. It was brought to my attention via a faxed copy of the article sent to us by the Attorney-General's office on 26 May. Advice on the argument in the article was sought initially from officials and legal advisers within the Home Office, and then from the Law Officers on 1 June.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave the matter extremely careful and detailed consideration. The final advice arrived from the Law Officers in the Home Office on 17 June. Officials provided me with detailed advice on 18 June, and the draft order reviving the provisions was laid yesterday, 23 June.
The matter may now seem straightforward—it turned out that part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was inoperative—but it by no means seemed to be straightforward when the issue was first raised. Obviously, it was important to ascertain from the best legal advice available that what was suggested in one article in one law journal was likely to turn out to be an authoritative position.
I still do not know the author of the article, but plenty of articles that appear in law journals turn out not to be accurate. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe is smiling. It is probably just as well that not all articles are authoritative, especially if one is the Home Secretary.
That is the chronology of events. We wanted to be sure about the position before seeking the approval of the House. Coming to the House yesterday, we were clear that the Act had been inoperative in respect of those parts, and we came to the House to remedy the matter.
The second issue that right hon. and hon. Members raised was whether I should have used the urgency procedures in section 27(7)(b) of the PTA in respect of reviving the provisions and immediately revived them, without coming before the House to seek retrospective approval. Of course I considered the matter carefully and took advice on the use of the urgency procedures, but those are used principally to deal with the need to revive provisions urgently because of a pending terrorist threat.
The view that I took on advice was that it was difficult to argue that the present situation was the one anticipated by Parliament when it agreed to provide a Secretary of State with such urgency provisions. For that reason, I judged that the best approach was to come as quickly as possible to the House to make the position clear and to seek the House's co-operation in getting the changes through as quickly as possible.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe for their suggestions about how we might deal with the matter speedily. We hope that it will go through this place speedily tonight and also through the other place tonight. If that happens, the order can become law tomorrow.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I understand that Parliament has a perfect right to put the order through as speedily as we intend to do it, but I do not understand the need for it, given that the two subsections are not much used, that there is an appeal pending on 19 July and that the Lord Chief Justice has made clear his view that
Both sections undermine in a blatant and obvious way the presumption of innocence.

Mr. Straw: I shall give my hon. Friend the best answer that I can. We are seeking to recreate the status quo ante without making the legislation retrospective. If this technical drafting error had not come to light—and therefore made this part of the Act inoperative until, we hope, tomorrow—the appeal would have proceeded in the normal way. There is no suggestion that a provision of primary legislation should be withdrawn merely by virtue of the fact that a divisional court has held a particular part of an Act to be incompatible with the provisions of the European convention. It is my judgment that we need to put this provision back on to the statute book as quickly as possible because it was, after all, Parliament's intention that it should never have been off the statute book.
Although my hon. Friend is right to say that these provisions are not used that frequently—certainly in terms of charges, and I shall come on to the numbers in a moment—they are important provisions. One never knows, particularly in this area of law, how many offences are being deterred by such provisions. It is impossible to tell, but we believe that some are being deterred. The converse is more certain to be the case.
The other point that I should like to make to my hon. Friend is the important constitutional point about the sovereignty of Parliament. The whole issue of the European convention arose acutely when we debated what became the Human Rights Act 1998. We could have approached the introduction of a Human Rights Bill into our constitution in two ways. One was to follow the procedures that some Commonwealth countries have followed, by which a supreme court is able to override the will of Parliament. The other approach, which has been adopted by other Commonwealth countries, is the reverse of that, whereby the supreme court is allowed to exercise an opinion about whether legislation is incompatible with some basic law, but whether any action is taken is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the courts.
I happen to believe strongly in the sovereignty of Parliament, and I know that that view is shared by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. We decided very clearly that, under the scheme that we set down for the Human Rights Act 1998, it should never be possible for the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to make a judgment overriding the decisions of this House and the other place in their legislative capacity. That would have transferred the sovereignty of decision making from Parliament to a supreme court. That arrangement applies in some constitutions—most notably in the United States—but it does not apply here.
The scheme that we adopted, which is set out in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is that it is open to the courts at any stage to declare primary legislation—which this is, by the way—incompatible with the convention, but what action is then taken is a matter for this House and the other place. Two alternative courses of action can be taken. A decision can be taken to legislate for the change either by the urgency procedures in the 1998 Act or in normal time. Alternatively, Parliament can decide not to change the legislation, and a final decision would rightly and properly be made on appeal by the injured party to the Strasbourg Court and the matter would again come back to Parliament.
That was clearly the opinion of Parliament, so if we were to take any other decision today, we would be acting against the clear wishes of Parliament as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998. I should add a technical but important detail. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, although passed, is not yet in force.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the way in which he is tackling the matter, but may I put one or two points to him? The consequences of the loophole are threefold. Because there was a loophole, we had, as my right hon. Friend quite properly said, the unusual circumstances in which the Lord Chief Justice was able to make a declaration of law that this provision was incompatible with the European convention, even if it has not come into effect, and was a denial of the presumption of innocence, which does not depend just on the European court but is embedded in many centuries of British legal practice.
Secondly, I think that my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that, although such action is contrary to the European convention, the Government will want to proceed with it, because I am a great believer in the sovereignty of Parliament; but yesterday—this can be found in column 1172 of Hansard—he said that the Government's view was that such action was not incompatible with the convention.
My right hon. Friend must make up his mind. If the Lord Chief Justice says that such action is incompatible with the convention and he says that it is not, he is saying not that it is incompatible but that he does not care. This is a very important point, which will arise time and again as the convention comes into effect following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take my

arguments seriously. They relate not to the merit of the case, but to the clarity of Parliament's approach to legislation of this importance.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that I asserted yesterday that the Government consider that sections 16A and 16B of the Prevention of Terrorism Act are not incompatible with the convention. I still believe that. I also made it clear beyond peradventure that, as it happens, the Lord Chief Justice takes a different view, and that view is clearly set out.
I drew the House's attention to the proceedings yesterday. We do not know what decision the Appellate Committee will reach. It may decide to share the view of the Lord Chief Justice in the divisional court, which is not the final Court of Appeal in regard to matters of this kind, or it may reach a different view. As I said yesterday, the Government have already made it clear to the other parties that we will argue strongly that sections 16A and 16B are compatible with the convention. Given that position, I do not believe for a moment that it would be appropriate for us, because of the chance that a particular part of the Act will turn out to be inoperative for 15 months, to allow those sections to remain inoperative for a further period. Moreover, that would set a constitutional precedent that I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would approve in any other context.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: My right hon. Friend has described, accurately and helpfully, the procedures that will follow implementation of the Human Rights Act; but is he not pre-empting those procedures, and preventing them from being followed? Instead of waiting for the House of Lords to adjudicate on the legal matter, he is simply saying, "I disagree with the Lord Chief Justice."

Mr. Straw: No. The position is quite the reverse. Another section of the Act—I have had to refresh my memory about each section—makes it absolutely clear that a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the operability, or remaining in force, of any primary legislation.
The Act is not yet in force, and will not be in force until late next year, but let us work on the basis of its operation. Section 4(6) clearly states—this was Parliament's explicit will—
A declaration under this section ('a declaration of incompatibility') … does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and … is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.
That could not be clearer—and it was made clear in order to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Stinchcombe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: Just one more time.

Mr. Stinchcombe: My point is this: all that would follow if my right hon. Friend accepted the court's judgment that the legislation was incompatible with the



convention, but he is simply saying that he disagrees and preventing the House from passing legislation in the light of a determination of incompatibility.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is making the most extraordinary point. No declaration of incompatibility has yet been made by the highest court in the land—leaving aside the fact that the Act is not yet in force, which is a subsidiary and quite important issue in the proceedings, as one of the points that we shall be asserting is that the courts have anticipated implementation of an Act.
Any party to proceedings is entitled, particularly pending appeal, to seek to preserve the status quo. In the specific proceedings, I am entitled to assert—on the best advice and my best judgment—that section 16A and section 16B are compatible with the convention, and I have done. However, even if the Appellate Committee were to decide that the provisions were incompatible with the convention, it would not render the provisions invalid or undermine their continuing operation. Other action may have to follow, and judgments would have to be made, but such a decision would not affect that.
By way of reassurance, I should say that, in his decision in the divisional court, although the Lord Chief Justice was very clear in his own mind that sections 16A and 16B were incompatible with the provisions of the European convention, he did not say that they should not be operated. He went on to say that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have to bear in mind questions of compatibility in bringing prosecutions—which is a rather more subtle conclusion to the argument.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: If I may first make some progress, I shall give way.

Mr. Corbyn: It is on this point.

Mr. Straw: Then I shall give way.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way now; obviously it would be helpful if we could deal with the issues as they arise.
As I understand it, the Law Lords will be considering the matter on 19 July. Will the Home Secretary explain why it is necessary for us to legislate now? Would it not be more appropriate, in normal constitutional terms, to leave the issue until after 19 July, when it may not be necessary for the House to debate the legislation at all?

Mr. Straw: As I sought to explain in answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), Parliament's will was that the provisions should be in force. They are not used all that often in prosecutions—although they have been used on one more occasion than I had thought that they were yesterday; I shall explain that to the House in a moment—but they are regarded as important. I therefore thought that it was important to bring them before the House as quickly as possible.
If the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was the United Kingdom supreme court and its power overrode Parliament, the assumption made by

my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) would be a correct one. We would then be in a situation in which a constitutional court had declared that Parliament should not have done something that we had done and that the provision was inoperative for the future. However, that is not case.
I cannot pre-empt the Appellate Committee's judgment, or any decision made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and other Ministers, if the Appellate Committee decides that sections 16A and 16B are outwith the convention. However, as I said, one possibility—it is only a possibility—is that the Government may decide that we continue to believe that the sections are compatible and that we wish to argue it out before the court in Strasbourg. Even then, the matter would not be settled, and it could be some years before there was a decision by the institutions of the Council of Europe and any jurisprudential clarity on whether the sections were compatible with the convention.
Meanwhile, it has always been accepted by all signatories to the European convention that domestic law should remain operative, for reasons that the whole House will understand: simply the prospect of a final declaration by the Strasbourg Court could render inoperative all sorts of legislation that each domestic jurisdiction needs.

Mr. Tony Benn: The matter boils down to one question. Does the House know what it is doing today? The Home Secretary might say, "The measure is incompatible. The Lord Chief Justice says that it is incompatible and so does the appellate court, but I do not care because it is in the national interest." If he did, the House would know what it was doing. Alternatively, he could say that there was no issue of incompatibility. If he did, he would be going against the current law of the land as the Lord Chief Justice lays down the law until it is reversed.
The House is entitled to know the basis of the vote that my right hon. Friend asks us for tonight. Is he saying that the measure is incompatible and therefore there is no problem, or that it is not incompatible and he does not think that it matters? At least we ought to know what we are being asked to do.

Mr. Straw: I have sought to explain the matter. Without labouring the point, right hon. and hon. Members are being asked to approve or not to approve the draft order that I have laid before the House, which brings in parts IVA and IVB of the 1989 Act. They are being asked to do that and nothing else.
Although the issue of compatibility or incompatibility is relevant to the debate, it is not directly relevant to the judgment as to whether the order should or should not become law. I have tried to explain that to the best of my ability. I have never said to my right hon. Friend that I do not care whether or not the measure is incompatible. Of course I care whether law is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998—I expect that the entire House does, but as I was the Minister who brought the Human Rights Act before the House, I care profoundly about it. The alternatives that my right hon. Friend put forward—that it is either compatible or incompatible and that I do not care—are not the only options. I do care about it and, with respect to the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the divisional court, I take a different view. On the best legal


advice, the Government take a different view and that will be argued before the Appellate Committee. Although that is related to the order, it is separate from it.
I have spoken at greater length than I had anticipated but I should like to place one or two additional points on the record. Yesterday, I said that my information was that six people had been charged with offences under sections 16A and 16B. Central records on these matters are not kept, but I now understand from the police that the total is in fact seven. The seventh case also related to international terrorism and was dropped before it came to court. It remains the case, as I said yesterday, that there have been no convictions so far under sections 16A or 16B.
I also explained that the individual whose indictment was quashed had been in custody for some months and that we could therefore expect to receive a claim for compensation. In one other of the total of seven cases charged under sections 16A and 16B, a man whose alleged offence was committed after 22 March 1998 spent some months in custody before proceedings were discontinued. It may well be that he, too, will claim compensation.
Let me deal briefly with the content of sections 16A and 16B of the PTA. Section 16A makes it unlawful to be in possession of articles in circumstances which give rise to suspicion that they are intended for terrorist purposes. It is a defence to prove that the articles concerned were not held for terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it an offence to collect or record information that is likely to be of use to terrorists without lawful authority or reasonable excuse for doing so.
Although the provisions have not been used very much, I understand that experience of the equivalent provisions in Northern Ireland has been positive. Both Lord Lloyd in his inquiry into legislation against terrorism and John Rowe in his annual reports have commented on the usefulness of these provisions and recommended that they should be retained. The Government's consultation paper on permanent counter-terrorist legislation agrees.

Mr. Tom King: May I clear up one point? The Leader of the House told us last night that there were plenty of other powers and measures and these were not needed.

Mr. Straw: I fully understand and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but, with the greatest respect, I did not take that to be the case from reading the Hansard report of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Other provisions are available for similar conduct, including conspiracy. They do not completely overlap or there would be no point in these provisions. One reason why the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe introduced the Act was the difficulty of charging with conspiracy in some cases.
I have dealt with the appeal at length. Section 16C and schedule 6A give the police, subject to authorisation at superintendent level or above, the power to cordon off areas and restrict access in connection with a terrorist investigation and make it an offence not to obey police instructions. As I told the House yesterday, central records are not kept, but our information is that the Metropolitan

police have used the powers 86 times since March 1998. The police have certain common law powers to impose cordons, on which they rely in non-terrorist cases, but section 16C provides a firm statutory basis for their actions.
Section 16D gives the police power to impose temporary parking restrictions on roads in response to a general threat to vulnerable targets such as Government buildings or financial centres. The police have some powers in that respect under common law, but the provision gives the reassurance of statutory underpinning. Lord Lloyd and John Rowe agreed that the powers under sections 16C and 16D were valuable and should be retained.
I apologised to the House yesterday for what has happened and I do so again. I am grateful to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for their co-operation in bringing the order before the House. I hope that I have explained the circumstances, including the important aspect of the appeal to the Appellate Committee and the question of the convention, to the House's satisfaction. I shall respond to any other points when I wind up the debate.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: As I said yesterday, the Opposition will support the Government in their proposal to remedy the defects that they allowed to be created in March 1998. We also hope that we can maintain the position that the provisions of sections 16A and 16B are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
I found the Home Secretary's explanation of the gap between 24 May, when the lacuna was first noticed—it was drawn to his attention two days later—and yesterday, when he did not show the most amazing urgency to put things right, wholly unacceptable given the seriousness of the legislation and some of the offences that might have been caught under the provisions. I do not want to labour the point because we dwelt on it at length yesterday, but I was hoping to hear a more satisfying explanation for the delay. There was a lamentable lack of urgency in the Home Office and on the part of Ministers in bringing the issue before the House and getting it sorted out. Given that it has now been brought before the House, I hope that we shall finally sort the issue out tonight.
I was going to refer to some of the points that have been made by Labour Members, not because I disagree with the Home Secretary's assessment of compatibility, but to test it. It is clearly in the interests of the House to be able to be confident in the assertions that Ministers make when we pass legislation. The Home Secretary has asserted continually tonight, as he did yesterday, that, in his view, the provisions were not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Although I have heard much assertion, I have heard little argument. For example, I have not heard the Home Secretary's reasons for the reverse in the burden of proof.
It is significant that, in opposition in 1994, the Labour party opposed sections 16A and 16B, and that the noble Lord Williams of Mostyn, now Minister of State, Home Office, and a former chairman of the Bar, gave as his reason for opposition at that time his assessment that the provisions of sections 16A and 16B violated ECHR considerations. I am not saying that I agree with that


assessment—clearly, we did not at the time—but I should like the Home Secretary to put on the record, so that we may have some authoritative statement rather than assertion, why he considers that those contentions are not valid.
Last night, we were clearly told—I admire an interpretation of Hansard that could come to another view—that there was no urgency because other measures were on the statute book which would protect us should an offence arise under the provisions. The Home Secretary should now be frank with the House and say that what we were told was wrong, because he would not be here reintroducing the provisions if he believed that he already had adequate coverage under other parts of the Act.
We will support the Government in putting right the mess that they have made. It is not the first time that inattention to detail has resulted in problems for the right hon. Gentleman. It is not so long since a report was issued in which nobody had apparently noticed that the names of sensitive witnesses were still included. I would ask him, as a general question, although not without some sympathy, what he is doing to get a grip on the way that detail is handled in his Department.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a short contribution in this important debate. I declare at the outset an interest as a barrister who practised in human rights law before the election. I spoke in support of the renewal of the prevention of terrorism measures after my election, and on Second Reading of the Human Rights Act 1998.
When I spoke in the first of those debates, I had missed entirely two points that give rise to these proceedings today. I had not anticipated that any provisions had not been renewed and I certainly had not anticipated that it was arguable that those provisions were in breach of the ECHR and, therefore, in breach, in certain limited respects at least, of the Human Rights Act which we would shortly be introducing.
It is now clear that those provisions are arguably in breach of the ECHR, and it is also clear that the arguments are far from idle ones. They command the support of the Lord Chief Justice and, not just in muted terms, but in firm terms, he says that the provisions blatantly and obviously undermine the presumption of innocence. In so saying, he relies not just on his own judgment, but on authorities from abroad, including an authority from the Chief Justice of Canada and from a judge of the South African constitutional court.
Whether the Lord Chief Justice be right or wrong, in the face of that judgment, I find myself uncomfortable in coming to the House today and being asked to support the reintroduction of exactly the same provisions. I say that for these reasons. First, I have simply not had the benefit of the argument that the Lord Chief Justice had when he came to the conclusion that this was blatantly and obviously undermining the presumption of innocence. Secondly, an appeal is imminently to be heard in any event. Thirdly—a point that I raised by way of intervention—my right hon. Friend is today, before the appeal, coming to the House. He is not saying that he accepts that his measure is incompatible with the ECHR

and asking us to legislate in any event. Rather, he is simply saying that he has heard a judge say that it is incompatible and that he disagrees. That is not the way forward and not the way that the Human Rights Act anticipated would be the way forward.
We could wait and avoid that situation. That would enable the Home Secretary to come to the House in a few weeks and say, "I was right all along. Our highest domestic court agrees with me." Alternatively, he could say, "I disagree with the highest court, but we have enacted to protect the sovereignty of Parliament by the Human Rights Act." As matters stand, I would find those positions infinitely more comfortable than the position I am in today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that this matter could be brought before the House with a sense of urgency today is that Parliament's intention was frustrated by an error, and Parliament ought to have an immediate opportunity to restore the law to what it thought it had passed, without prejudice to the continuing argument over the compatibility of part of what we are passing tonight with the European convention on human rights.
I say "part of" what we are passing, because no one has challenged sections 16C and 16D in terms of their compatibility with the European convention. If the justification for action was an error, it would be slightly perverse not to restore the error as a whole. By restoring only part of it, on the grounds that certain provisions were in dispute in the courts in terms of their compatibility with the convention—although others were not—we would be selecting that part of the draftsman's error we were prepared to correct. That would not be a logical way of proceeding.
I say that without prejudice, in every sense of the words. It is without prejudice legally and, in more general layman's terms, without prejudice to the ultimate resolution of the question of compatibility by the case that is now proceeding in the courts. The Home Secretary did not complete the picture when he suggested what would happen if the Government continued to disagree on compatibility. After the issue has gone to Strasbourg, and if it is still found to be incompatible, there will then be created an obligation on Parliament not merely to consider defying Strasbourg by saying, "We do not like this and, in the national interest, we will not do it", but to pass legislation that becomes compliant. The end of this road is not potential defiance—we must seek compliance—but to follow a Strasbourg Court decision.
Those of us who are keen supporters of ECHR legislation hope that it will not often have to come to that. We hope that this House, on the basis of its initial consideration of proposed legislation, will not pass things that are not compliant, and that things that are found to be non-compliant will be changed fairly quickly. I shall refer to how we deal with that point in due course.
I raised with the Home Secretary yesterday a formal question, to which he gave an affirmative answer, about whether he would furnish a certificate of compatibility—as he would be obliged to do if this were primary legislation—if required to do so. He said that he would. I am bound to wonder what quality of advisers the right hon. Gentleman has if they can give that advice, when the


Lord Chief Justice has said otherwise in relation to the two sections. However, the Home Secretary seems persuaded and—as the legal proceedings are not over—he and the Government are entitled to put their case. We shall be interested to see what that is.
This point raises the question of what we shall do with the certificates, when Ministers issue them for future Bills, if they come out in a form that is already in dispute with what the Lord Chief Justice thinks of the law. The Lord Chief Justice's opinion is not final, but he is obviously a high-powered legal adviser. The fact that the Home Office thinks differently gives me cause for concern. Tonight, we are trying to put the law back to where Parliament thought it had left it in terms of the court case to resolve the compatibility question.
The procedures tonight call to mind the high risk of error. The Home Secretary misunderstood my question to him yesterday. He thought that I was implying that this error had resulted from the hasty way in which some of the proposed legislation had been treated. That was not my point. My point was that we have so often legislated in this area with unseemly haste that we run a high risk of errors of this kind. If we can do that on occasions when legislation has been dealt with properly and at greater length, the risk of doing so when we legislate in a hurry must be high indeed.
I call to mind the 1996 measures that created the cordon provisions, which were rushed through in a day or so, and the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was rushed through in a matter of days, even though its provisions extended far beyond the purposes of terrorism. In fact, they have created an area of law which is subject to annual review. As far as I am aware, the Home Secretary still has not announced a reviewing mechanism for those parts of the Act that are not terrorist related. That illustrates the danger of rushing into legislation.
Usually, there are powers that can be used, as the Home Secretary said, but the legislation being introduced is intended to provide the police and other authorities with a readier instrument to deal with a difficult situation. In my experience, the sense of urgency has not usually proved justified, but the powers have often proved useful.
The use of the cordon power on more than 80 occasions by the Metropolitan police suggests that there was some purpose in enacting it, and the difficulty that they were having with the possession of materials intended for terrorist purposes, scattered around lock-up garages in various outskirts of the capital, shows that there was a need for some of the other powers.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), whom I greatly respect and with whom I have often worked, is pushing the argument a bit far in suggesting that the Government were wholly irresponsible for allowing some days to pass while they sorted matters out. There were provisions on the statute book that could be used. Indeed, they were on the statute book for most of the time that the previous Government were in office, when they did not consider it necessary to introduce provisions in this precise form.
It is appropriate to restore the law to what it was, partly because of the usefulness of the provisions and partly because Parliament thought that they were there all along.

If there were no means of challenging a possible incompatibility, I would not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion, but there is a court procedure to be followed and the whole of the legislation is, rightly, under review.
Temporary provisions and occasional "recess Acts", enacted either on the very eve of a recess or in a recall, have had to be reviewed. They have been the subject of a consultative paper, in response to which there have been criticisms of sections 16A and 16B, which I hope that the Government are considering. I would like the Government to make it clear that the consultative process, the proposal phase of which was completed in March this year, will come to reasonably early fruition.
What we enact tonight will be on the statute book only until next March. When we are presented with a renewal decision at that time, we should know where we stand on the review and the enactment of permanent legislation.
Because of an error of which Parliament was unaware—I take some satisfaction from the fact that all the lawyers on all the Front Benches in both Houses failed to spot it—there has not been on the statute book a provision that Parliament thought that it had made. The problem that some of it is being contested in the courts for its compatibility with the European convention would not be resolved by our choosing not to correct a part of the error. I would rather that the powers remained in place and the legal challenge continued, with the review process proceeding apace, so that we can have carefully drafted permanent legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I share the discomfort expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) about the provisions. I entirely accept the Government's right to do what they are doing, but it runs against the spirit of the human rights legislation that we are in the process of enacting and gives an inauspicious signal for the future, especially when the Lord Chief Justice is opposed.
Others are also opposed. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned the Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is a distinguished Queen's Counsel. In his previous incarnation as Labour home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, he was very outspoken on this subject. He said that sections 16A and 16B were
far too harsh and draconian
and said:
If we condemn our citizens to the possibility of 10 years' imprisonment on the basis of reasonable suspicion … we are in serious danger of giving terrorism a victory that it would not otherwise achieve."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1208–09.]
So it is not only the views of the Lord Chief Justice that we have to take into account, but those of someone who is now a Minister of State at the Home Office. Even if we do not take the Lord Chief Justice seriously, we should take Home Office Ministers seriously.
We should bear in mind the strong criticisms that have been made when we review this legislation. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, an overall review is being carried out and that may provide the opportunity to put it right. I feel very uneasy, as I know many others do, about doing away with the


presumption of innocence, and I am unconvinced that it is necessary in the cause of fighting terrorism. I am as keen on catching terrorists as anyone else, and I have had better luck in finding them than some of those whose job it is, but I do not believe that 16A and 16B will do much to help. Finally, for the record, I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that, when the Government appeals on 19 July against the ruling by the Lord Chief Justice, they will appeal against both 16A and 16B.

Mr. Tom King: The title of the order—the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB) Order—describes accurately the bizarre situation we are in. In case it is thought that I am being ungracious to the Home Secretary, I point out that I applaud the fact that we are here tonight. The action that we are taking is correct. It is very important that the order is approved, and I hope that it will be. I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for responding to the request that I made last night that we should give a timetable of events since the information first became available to the Government, and I shall have some questions to ask about that.
I shall not enter into the argument, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made, about whether we need the powers, because the Home Secretary has answered that, and we have the benefit of the report by Mr. Rowe to the Home Secretary as recently as February 1999, which made clear his views that the powers should be retained. Unfortunately, the comments made by the Leader of the House—in what I recognise was a difficult situation for her—did not do the House much credit, because this is a serious matter. Her answers were not especially helpful. The information that I have from the police is that the powers are important, for precisely the reason that the Home Secretary gave this evening.
The issue is not only how many people were charged and convicted, but how many were arrested under the power and what deterrent effect it has had. The Home Secretary is a lucky man, because those 86 cordons that were illegally imposed might have led to some difficult situations. There will be a bill to be paid in respect of those unlawfully detained, but it could have been much higher.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's comments about the timetable of events. I would be grateful if, when he winds up, he would clarify some points. The Home Office heard about the problem from the Law Officers' Department, which faxed a copy of the article to the Home Office on 26 May. When did the Law Officers first read that article? It took five days to decide to ask the Law Officers' advice and a further 16 to 17 days to get that advice.
I do not know whether the Law Officers regarded it as a serious matter or simply as part of the daily dross of their usual responsibilities, such as clearing up Home Office mistakes or clarifying problems in drafting. Perhaps they thought that that would work on it when they had the opportunity. However, we are entitled to an explanation as to why it took so long for them to do so.
We understand that the Home Office and parliamentary draftsmen will always be with us, and that, from time to time, they will make some pretty big howlers. My right

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has had to face some of the consequences of that possibility. One of the most important requirements of Ministers is to have good antennae and a good sense of smell, so that they can detect problems before they happen. I thought that the Home Secretary was the one Minister in this Government to have those qualities, so I am all the more surprised by what has happened.
I think back on my experience in government, under Margaret Thatcher. If I had had to tell her that we had forgotten to include two key elements in the prevention of terrorism legislation, and that, for a month, I had not wanted to press the Law Officers too hard because they had a lot on their plate, I can imagine her reaction only too easily. No Home Secretary under Margaret Thatcher would have survived it.
To avoid misrepresentation, I assure the Home Secretary that I am not calling for his resignation. However, I find the situation that has arisen absolutely incredible. I have had no satisfactory explanation as to why requirements considered essential by Parliament were accidentally omitted. The right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that Parliament had wanted those requirements included in the legislation because they were a necessary bulwark against terrorism, but nothing was done for a month after their omission became known.
The Law Officers are not present just now. Perhaps they are seeking advice—a wise precaution, if I may say so. I fail to understand their response. Surely any responsible Minister would have sought urgent advice from them and would have expected it on his desk the following morning. The Home Secretary knows well both the House and the attitude of all opposition parties with regard to prevention of terrorism, but, last night, the Leader of the House suggested that it was possible that the opposition parties would have considered it an affront to Parliament if the Home Secretary had remedied the mistake at the earliest possible moment.
The Home Secretary discovered the answer to that proposition as soon as he made his statement yesterday. It was that the mistake had to be rectified straight away. In his statement today, the Home Secretary has failed to explain how what I have called "this dereliction of duty" occurred.
The Home Secretary is a very lucky man. The police regard the two powers involved as important instruments in the fight against terrorism. What would have happened if incidents such as those that occurred in Manchester or Warrington had taken place again? What would have happened if there had been another terrorist outrage in this country?
For example, some time ago, there was an attempt, involving many people, to close down the power system in the City of London by attacking electricity substations. Let us suppose that a similar case arose, and that people had been arrested on a strong suspicion of being on their way to commit that terrorist offence, given that they were in possession of material and articles appropriate to the act. Even in such circumstances, the Home Secretary would have been required to tell the House that those people had been released because of a recently discovered


omission in the law whose rectification was still being considered. I suggest that such an admission would have had to be accompanied by his resignation.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman goes a little over the top by implying that the police would have sat back, saying that there was nothing that they could do. The police would have used existing powers, albeit with the weakness of a lower chance of ultimate conviction and the likelihood of a lower sentence on conviction. However, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply that the police would have done nothing if they had been in possession of the facts that he has outlined.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may take his answer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and from the Home Secretary who said—as he implicitly did earlier—that the powers are necessary. With my experience of those matters, I know the difficulties of finding sufficient grounds for arrest, or of establishing charges against terrorists, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands the problems.
It is remarkable that we should have remained without the powers—accidentally but for a long time at first, and subsequently because of a failure to correct the error. The right hon. Gentleman earlier paid me a nice compliment, and I can return it by saying that he is honourable and genuine. He knows that, if there had been a major terrorist incident while the Home Office was aware that the powers were faulty, but while nothing had been done, there would have been a major political scandal.
I do not seek such scandal. I am too committed to fighting terrorism from any quarter. Democracy faces many difficulties in that fight, and we must be properly equipped. I am seriously worried by the way in which this matter has been handled. Whether the error lies with Ministers or with the Law Officers, it lies with the Government. We are owed an adequate explanation.

Mr. Michael Howard: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made several powerful points, with which I agree and which I shall not repeat. The Home Secretary told the House last night that the provisions are a serious part of the armoury against terrorism. As I was responsible for their introduction, the House will be unsurprised to hear that I agree. I welcome their restoration to the statute book, and I thank the Home Secretary for responding to my express invitation to reconsider the timetable that he had originally had in mind for putting the powers back where they belong and where they represent a serious weapon against terrorism.
I have one point to make about timing, which my right hon. Friend analysed in detail. I intend no excessive loyalty to my former Department in saying that, in the timetable provided by the Home Secretary, the 17 days that it took the Law Officers to respond to the Home Office request for advice shriek for our attention. That is an astonishing period, and I hope that the Home Secretary will discuss that point in his reply.
I listened with great interest to the points put to the Home Secretary by his right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, when he made a point of referring with some

emphasis to the official Opposition, I was not at all sure whether he was using that term to distinguish us from the Liberal Democrats or from those behind him. Those points and the response that the Home Secretary made to them illustrate the constitutional mess that one gets into if one introduces the kind of legislation that the Home Secretary has introduced in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. I regret to say that I believe that the country as a whole, and perhaps even the Government, will live to regret the day when they decided to put that legislation before the House.
Yesterday, I expressed some sympathy for the Home Secretary's predicament. I express further sympathy with him today for the disputes that have arisen between him and the judiciary. My sympathy will not do him any good at all, but he will understand that I very much feel for him as he makes his way. The Lord Chief Justice has ruled against him. He is now in the process of appealing to a higher court. It all has an incredibly familiar ring about it, but I am on the Home Secretary's side. It will not do him any good at all, but I wish him well in all those battles.

Audrey Wise: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is enjoying this enormously, but it might do no harm to remind him that some of us on the Labour Benches remember the considerable difficulties that he got into with the law on lots of occasions as Home Secretary. So, a little humility would not come amiss.

Mr. Howard: I rather thought that that was the point that I was making. I am sorry if it escaped the hon. Lady.
I welcome what the Home Secretary has done tonight. I welcome the fact that he has brought the legislation to the House. As he said last night, it is an important part of our armoury against terrorism. It is needed in the fight against terrorism, and vigilance continues to be necessary in the face of the threat of terrorism. That is why the House should pass the measure that the Home Secretary has brought before us.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall not rise to the level of my right hon. Friends who have preceded me in speaking from the Opposition Benches, but I will say a brief word. I can certainly declare an interest. For ministerial sins of omission and commission, I have never come remotely near being a member of the Home Secretary's club, although I have some vicarious experience. I remember my father's experiences and I certainly feel sympathy for the Home Secretary in the predicament in which he has found himself.
These are serious matters. There was a trivial example in yesterday's proceedings of how a slip of the tongue can get us into difficulties. The Home Secretary, in response to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said of the 1996 Act:
That Act introduced changes in respect of sections 16C and 16D in part IVB of the Act, as opposed to part IVA, which relates to cordons and parking restrictions."—[Official Report, 23 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1174.]
He clearly meant part IVB of the Act, which relates to cordons and parking restrictions, as opposed to part IVA, but the wording that he used eluded the eye of whichever


member of his private office was sent to check the record. Therefore, we are left with a thing that is mildly misleading in the record.
In terms of sections 16A and 16B, I have a question about the police powers on the statute book that would have protected us during the period since 22 March 1998. I have searched both what the Home Secretary said yesterday and what the Leader of the House said yesterday evening and I cannot detect any precise reference. I realise that lawyers who have participated in the debate may know precisely what powers would have been substituted for sections 16A and 16B, but it would be helpful for the purposes of historians to have on the record what they would have been.
On sections 16C and 16D, there was an exchange at column 217 on 2 April 1996 in discussing the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) acknowledged to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that there were powers under common law on cordons and parking restrictions, and that the legislation that we were passing was simply intended to strengthen them.
I have an incidental question that seems relevant, given that the powers that we are reviving provide for 14 days initially, with a power for a 14-day extension for cordons and, I think, parking restrictions. It would be interesting to know the longest period for which the powers were required on the 86 occasions that the legislation has been used since 22 March.
I have a minor complaint that is not remotely worthy of a point of order. Events such as those with which we have been dealing in the past 24 hours highlight the utility of the library immediately behind me in the No Lobby, which contains Hansards and Bills. I make no complaint, and I do not know who has offended by removing them, but all the Bills for 1996 are absent from the No Lobby. I understand that the sessional index for 1996–97 has not yet been printed but those for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are absent. Although they are available in other parts of the Palace, it slows things down if we cannot make use of them in trying to research something in a short space of time. It is because of their absence that I ask the Home Secretary one remaining question on sections 16C and 16D, which are now Part IVB.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), at the time of the 1996 Act, asked about the royal parks police. Section 5 of the 1996 Act, which we are renewing today, specifies that the ranks that can trigger a cordon as
any police officer of or above the rank of commander of the metropolitan police, as respects the metropolitan police district".
The same provision is made in respect of the City of London police and it also specifies
any police officer of or above the rank of assistant chief constable of a force maintained for any other police area".
Those powers can be renewed by an officer ranked as a superintendent or higher. What rank in the royal parks police is necessary? Such parks are exactly the sort of place where such a cordon or parking restrictions might be required.

Mr. Straw: I will seek to answer the points that have been raised as best I can. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster

(Mr. Brooke) for pointing out what appears to be a drafting subtlety in the Hansard record where A and B were transposed. That was a mocking point against myself, given the original description of the error that has led us here.
I shall go through the main points. First, the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked about the time taken to bring the matter before the House. It is obviously a serious matter and we dealt with it as quickly as we could. Many articles make assertions. In the journal in question, the author of the article hit the bull's-eye but it is not a learned journal with the highest reputation. It is not avidly read on a wide scale, even by criminal law practitioners, so much so that the lawyers for the defendants in the case never took that point at all. Had they done so, the matter would probably have been resolved by the courts, rather than by this place.

Mr. Howard: Did the Home Secretary take the elementary precaution of checking that the editor of the publication is not one of his constituents?

Mr. Straw: I can guarantee that. I know all my constituents; they are engaged in higher occupations.
Many articles make many assertions. This article was drawn to the attention of the Law Officers; the member of that Department who read it made the judgment that it raised a serious point. It then came to the Home Office and my officials considered it with care. It was then considered by the Law Officers with great care. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater asked for details. For reasons that he will fully understand, such detail is not normally given about the work of the Law Officers. However, such was the care taken that the Law Officers consulted not one experienced counsel, but two separate counsel about the matter, because they—and we—wanted to be as certain as possible that the opinion that those parts of the Act were inoperative was accurate.
When issues arise, the Law Officers and departmental legal advisers may take an initial view and the matter goes to counsel for careful opinion. They might then arrive at a view that is different from that which was taken originally. There would then be nothing to bring before the House. That could easily have been true in this case. We had to achieve a balance—I think that the balance was right, but I understand the anxiety of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater—between dealing with the matter as quickly as possible and not dealing with it in haste and arriving at a judgment that turned out to be inaccurate. The House would not have thanked us if, on the basis of that article, we had rushed in with an inadequate consideration of what may be a very discrete issue, but one that is also rather complicated. It might have turned out that we had wasted everyone's time because we had acted on poor advice. I wanted to be certain that the advice that we received was robust. Having received that advice, we did everything necessary in order to come back to the House as quickly as possible.
Although I could have dealt with the matter in a written question, I was clear that it was of such importance that I should make an announcement to the House. The other factor that we had to take into account—it was a matter of one or two days—was ensuring that we were clear as to the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of the prosecution that would then be rendered otiose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and other hon. Members asked about the position of the European convention on human rights. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked me why we took a view that was different from that of the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. Tom King: The Home Secretary has gone to some trouble to respond to my point and it is only courteous to say so. However, I do not think that I am the only Member of the House who finds his explanation quite unconvincing. It does not seem to advance us at all. Is it not correct that the point was that the renewal and the continuance related to parts I to V inclusive? However, when part II was deleted, the fact had to be mentioned that it was parts I, III, IV and V, but parts IVA and IVB also had to be mentioned. It was as complicated as that; I cannot understand why it took 16 days to work it out.

Mr. Straw: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my explanation. I had no interest whatever in delaying the matter. I recognised the urgency of the matter and paid personal attention to it. I wanted the advice as quickly as possible. We received that advice as quickly as the Law Officers could produce it. However, I have also explained that, if it had been an obvious point, some of us might have spotted it. No one spotted it—not even the best legal brains in the House; not the Ministers responsible, including myself. No one spotted it—except the author of the article. I have done my best to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I did not succeed. We acted as fast as we could in the circumstances.
In the time available, I shall deal with some other points raised in the debate. One relates to the question of incompatibility and why I have come to my present view. However, before I deal with that point, I must pick up on the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who tweaked me about the fact that Home Secretaries occasionally take a different view from that of the courts. I did not particularly want to make this an ad hominem point, but I have the highest regard and respect for the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham—and I am sure that my opinion is shared universally in the House.
The Lord Chief Justice would be the first to say that he is not the supreme court of the land, nor is he the sovereign Parliament. I can think of many occasions when he has come to a view that is different from that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the day, and an equal number of occasions when decisions of the court of appeal and the divisional court—in which the then Lord Chief Justice has sat—have been overturned by the Appellate Committee.
I can think of a current extradition case where the view of the divisional court was overturned by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, and the Appellate Committee then came to a different view from that of a previous Appellate Committee which heard the matter only a month or so before. These matters are not over until they are over.
I was asked for the reasons why we have come to the view that the provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. This should not be viewed

by the Appellate Committee of the other place as a skeleton argument that will be advanced there; this is simply my explanation. There are many provisions in our law where the burden of proof is reversed. Article 6.2 of the convention does not prohibit absolutely a reversal of the burden of proof: it requires instead a balancing of the interests of the defendant and those of society. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights recognises that, where reasonable and justifiable, the state may impose a burden of proof on the defendant.
I remind all my hon. Friends who have practised in the lower courts that we often had to wrestle with this question when those whom we represented or prosecuted were charged with an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Those of us who once practised in those courts will remember that section 1(1) of the Act states:
Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence".
That was a decision by Parliament that has stood the test of time. For good reasons—and in rather interesting parallel circumstances—it was decided that the burden of proof would rest with the defendant rather than with the prosecution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked whether, in the matter that will go before the Appellate Committee, section 16B will be appealable as well as section 16A. That has not been determined finally. In any event, the issue before the court amounts to the same thing. In practice, I am advised that it amounts to a distinction without a difference. The divisional court took no issue in respect of sections 16A and 16B.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked for some details about when we propose to introduce new legislation. It is likely that the present Prevention of Terrorism Act will have to be renewed next March. We will be very careful to ensure that the renewal orders are in order—although that is almost an invitation to the gods to ensure that they are not. It is probably an unwise promise to make—particularly from this Bench.
Without anticipating the Loyal Address, I have made it clear that it is our intention to lay legislation before the House and the other place to put on the statute book permanent counter-terrorist provisions, which will do away with the difficulties that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) faced in finding the various bits of legislation.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater asked what would have happened if terrorist incidents had taken place and the provisions had not been in force. I have never disguised from the House the fact that I regarded the matter as an error with potentially serious consequences. However, it is important to put it into perspective. In the circumstances of a major terrorist incident, such as the right hon. Gentleman described, charges under sections 16A and B would be unlikely to arise. The charges would relate to causing explosions, conspiracy to cause explosions and so on.
With regard to the cordon powers, a point raised by other right hon. and hon. Members, until those powers were taken in the Prevention of Terrorism


(Additional Powers) Act 1996, the police used certain common law powers, as I made clear yesterday, and they would have used those powers again.
With one exception—the issue of the royal parks police—I believe that I have answered each of the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The police do not have powers under section 16D. Anti-terrorist police provision is provided by the Metropolitan police throughout the London parks. The royal parks are not a cordon-free zone. That was anticipated by the draftsmen.

Mr. Howard: I am puzzled by one of the Home Secretary's answers, but the fault may be mine. He said that other powers were available to the police during the period when, as we now know, the powers that we are debating this evening were not available to them, but surely the police thought that those powers were available to them? Therefore the police would have used not the other powers—less satisfactory, but available—but the powers in question.
If there had been the threat of a major terrorist attack or plans for such an attack, in the course of which the police would normally use these powers, and if the powers had been used in good faith by the police, not knowing that they were not valid, those planning the major terrorist attack would have had to be released. That is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

Mr. Straw: I do not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I was responding to a rather different point that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater had made with regard to major terrorist incidents. I have never disguised the fact that, although the powers are not used often, the omission is serious. That is the reason for the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, that there are many other powers on the statute book. This has been a bipartisan debate, but if the powers were essential when we required anti-terrorist legislation, why were they not on the statute book until—

Mr. Howard: There is a simple answer. The powers were put on the statute book because I asked the police

whether they needed to have their armoury strengthened in order to counter terrorism more effectively. That is why they were put there.

Mr. Straw: I know that. I remember the debate and I supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the usual active support from the Back Benches.
My last point concerns the Human Rights Act 1998. The debate has been an interesting excursion into the kind of issues that may arise under that Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the country would live to regret the day that it put the legislation on the statute book. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said the same.
However, that was not the view of the official Opposition when the Act came through the House. On Third Reading, they said:
Although we have opposed aspects of the Bill"—
which were put in proper order as a result of a good Committee and Report stage on the Floor of the House—
we now wish it well and hope that it will be implemented effectively, to the benefit of the citizenry as a whole."— [Official Report, 21 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1362.]
On 21 October 1998, the Opposition wished the Human Rights Act well.
Perhaps that is another change of policy in a matter of a few months, not as a result of a change of leadership of the Conservative party, which as far as I recall has stayed the same, but a change of opinion among members on the Front Bench. We shall live and learn.
I thank the House for the way in which it has dealt with this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Highway Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Nut Allergies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of nut allergies and labelling, which is particularly appropriate given today's debate on food policy.
My attention was first brought to this issue by a constituent, Mrs. Heather Forrester. Her son James has a peanut allergy, and it was due to his story and his mother's concerns about the inadequacies of the current labelling regime that I requested this debate. However, in the short time since this debate was granted, we have witnessed yet another tragedy—the death of the young athlete, Ross Baillie. His funeral today brings added poignancy to tonight's discussion.
I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in sending sincere condolences to the family and friends of Ross Baillie. That talented young man was is in prime physical condition. Last year, he broke the Scottish record for the 100 m hurdles at the Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur.
When a fit, gifted young athlete like Ross dies because of a few bites of a chicken sandwich, it is surely our duty to ask whether his death and others like it could have been avoided. We need to ask whether actions that the House has the power to take could help to prevent such tragedies in the future.
Like my constituent, James Forrester, Ross Baillie was aware of his allergy, and was always extremely careful. But, with the seemingly ever-increasing use of nuts in food, even careful, responsible adults can be caught out, sometimes fatally.
I know that the Minister is aware of this issue. He showed his commitment to tackling it by launching the catering awareness campaign in November 1997. He should know that there is much more to be done. Having tried awareness campaigns, it is time to get tough. We must work with manufacturers and retailers, and be realistic about what can work and what will not work. I do not believe that the Minister thinks that enough has been done, and I hope that he will tell us that he intends to go further.
The first and most important issue involves the catering industry—restaurants, cafés and take-aways. At the moment, unpackaged food, most of which is sold by the catering industry, is completely unregulated. As the food is not bought in a package, the labelling regime for pre-packed foods by definition does not apply. There has been little or no attempt to find other ways to provide consumers with the necessary information. The policy problem is clear. How should we convey information about the presence of allergens—nuts and so on—when the food product is unlabelled?
The Government were right to start tackling this problem by raising awareness. Chefs and waiters must understand the severity of the problem. Tiny traces of nuts in a dish can induce life-threatening seizures. Catering staff should be able to inform customers of the ingredients of every menu item. But the question for the Minister is this: does he really think that his awareness campaign has gone far enough? Should we not be doing much more?
I should be fair to the Minister. On 18 May, in a letter to me, he admitted, when assessing the success of his own information campaign, that
we know that many recipients effectively ignored the information and that we did not reach some outlets at all".
Presumably, the Minister believes that we do need to consider other measures, and I want to suggest a few to him this evening.
At present, there are no regulations, or even codes of practice, governing what menus should say about the contents of different dishes with respect to allergens. A few restaurants voluntarily say on their menus that a meal contains nuts, but they are still the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, more restaurants manage to say whether a meal is suitable for vegetarians or vegans. In the case of allergens such as nuts, informing customers can be a matter of life and death. I do not think that we can rely on voluntary action.
How could a code of practice work? I think that the Government should issue strict rules, under food standards and safety laws. Such a code of practice could cover all severe allergies, not just allergies to nuts. The rules could cover menu information, good practice in the kitchen and staff training. The code of practice could include information about how caterers could find out whether their raw materials contained allergens. I should be grateful if the Minister said whether he was prepared to consider introducing such a code of practice; but can he at least assure me that he will begin consultations with the catering industry?
In his letter of 18 May, the Minister suggested that nut-free menus wold be difficult to introduce, because food could become accidentally contaminated. He argued that requiring nut-free labelling would be very difficult unless there were a complete ban on nuts. I understand the point that he was making, but I do not accept his conclusion. Certainly, a code of practice will need to be drawn up carefully to ensure that it is workable, but I cannot believe that it is impossible to produce an effective and practical code. Indeed, I think that the Minister's Department has an obligation to do so, given the importance of the issue.
Some who object to the idea of a code of practice argue that this is a question of individual responsibility, and that it should be up to allergy sufferers to ask about ingredients. Individual responsibility is important, but that approach alone—which has effectively been Government policy so far—has been shown to have its limitations. Our constituents, when going out for a meal, may check with the waiter whether a meal contains nuts; but, unless the staff have been properly trained, allergy sufferers cannot be confident about the replies that they are given. That is borne out by experience.
The latest newsletter of the Anaphylaxis Campaign cites two cases of allergy sufferers who made specific, careful requests of catering staff in regard to ingredients, received assurances that the meals involved were nut free, and then suffered severe allergic reactions. Both those people have taken legal action, and one has been successful in an out-of-court settlement. A successful action for negligence would, however, have been scant comfort if the reaction had resulted in death.
Surely such cases demonstrate the limitations of placing the emphasis solely on the sufferer, and the limitations of awareness programmes. I believe that they also show that


a tough approach would be in the interests of the catering industry. A strong code of practice would force the industry to become more aware of the problem, but it could also save individual caterers thousands of pounds in costs and compensation claims. In this instance, Government intervention would help both the consumer and business.
I note that regulations covering the identification of genetically modified foods in restaurants have been introduced quickly. Surely the same should apply to allergens such as nuts.
The second substantive issue on which I should like to press the Minister is the labelling of packaged foods. He will know that the labelling regime is widely criticised because of its failure to deal appropriately with allergens. Although in practice most manufacturers and retailers now go far beyond the requirements of the labelling regime, I hope that he will agree that the regime still needs changing.
The problem is the so-called 25 per cent. rule, which says that manufacturers do not have to list components of compound ingredients in which a component makes up less than 25 per cent. of the food. That might be reasonable for most component ingredients; but when part of the component is an allergen—such as a peanut—to which people may be hypersensitive, the 25 per cent. rule is clearly wrong.
The Minister will know that the European Commission has been seeking views, in a draft proposal, on amending the European Union directive to remove the 25 per cent. rule for allergens; but he will also know that progress has stopped, and that there is unlikely to be further action by the Commission. Will the Minister therefore raise the issue at the next Council of Ministers, so that fresh life might be breathed into the draft proposal? Will he also undertake to write to Ministers in other EU countries to ask for their support to fast-track the draft proposal?
The third issue that I should like to raise is so-called defensive labelling, which is the practice that some food manufacturers and retailers have adopted to protect themselves—of labelling everything as "may contain nuts". In that way, they seek to give themselves a type of insurance policy in relation to allergy sufferers. Such labelling certainly ensures that people are warned about nut ingredients, but it is completely the wrong approach.
For a start, defensive labelling is itself dangerous, as it devalues labelling information. People also soon realise that it is simply an insurance policy, particularly when the food seems very unlikely to contain nuts, so that they begin to lose faith in the labelling regime. Moreover, such a blanket approach is very unfair to allergy sufferers, as it unnecessarily restricts the choice of food available to them. As I said, I know that the Minister shares my concerns, and I should like to pay tribute to him for the way in which he has worked with the industry to try to curb that practice.
It is right to acknowledge the work that has been done by manufacturers and by their various trade bodies, such as the Food and Drink Federation, which has developed guidance for its members setting out minimum good practice standards for the handling of products containing severe allergens. Although I am told that there has been a reduction in the use of defensive labelling strategies, today the question is whether more could be done, with manufacturers and retailers, to make it possible to label more products as nut free.
I appreciate that there are genuine problems in giving such guarantees; not least is the difficulty of cross-contamination, whereby food production lines are used both for foods containing nuts and for those that are nut free. I am told by the industry that it is not economically viable to have dedicated facilities for nut-free products. Yet I am sure that industry could be encouraged to do more, and could be shown that it is profitable to do so. For example, one company—Kinnerton Confectionary—has already recognised the market opportunity and decided to produce children's products on dedicated nut-free lines.
How could the Government help in that? First, I believe that the Government must continue to spread awareness among manufacturers and press for the complete implementation of industry-designed guidelines. However, there is also a role for the Government in spreading best practice, as various manufacturers will be trying new ways to deal with cleansing production equipment, and other firms will have found ways in which different lines can be dedicated to nut-free products without damaging their wider range. Those experiences could be shared, so that more products are available and labelled as nut free.
I have not had time today to deal with many other aspects of the issue—such as the need for better information for allergy sufferers themselves, perhaps in a Government leaflet. We also need more allergy centres, where sufferers can be properly diagnosed and counselled. There is also a need for Epipens to be more widely available, so that, when people are caught out and suffer an allergic reaction, they can be treated quickly.
I hope that today's debate will have helped to focus attention on the need for major improvements in the provision of information on allergens to consumers. I hope that the experiences of my constituent, and the tragic death of Ross Baillie, will spur the Minister to do more, and to build on his record of action so far.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on introducing an important subject. I accept that he had obtained tonight's debate before the tragic death of Ross Baillie.
Bearing in mind that this is only a short debate, let me take the unusual step of giving the hon. Gentleman my conclusions before putting some details on the record. I agree with everything he said. There is scope for industry to do more, and I am certainly prepared to consider going beyond guidelines and producing a code of practice.
I take seriously everything that he said about the fact that, with the agreement of the catering industry, we have managed to introduce practical legislation for catering on genetically modified organisms. It will come into force on 19 September, following a couple of rounds of consultation last year and early this year. In my view, if we can legislate for GMOs, we ought to be able to do so for nuts, too. I am not threatening or promising legislation. If it is practical for the industry to inform customers and to train manufacturers to know what ingredients they are using in respect of GMOs, it should be possible in respect of nuts.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the 25 per cent. rule. There is a problem that we are seeking to address through international negotiations; that is an exception


that we do not consider should apply to nuts. I also agree with him about defensive labelling. I have criticised defensive labelling, which can be seen in most shops. I should like to put on record, however, the contribution of the industry. Some big confectionery manufacturers are operating nut-free lines because they cannot guarantee the complete separation of one product from another.
Since I became Minister with responsibility for food, I have taken a personal interest in the matter. However, the interest did not start under the present Government. When I met Mr. David Reading, I gave him a commitment that I would treat the matter as seriously as my predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), rightly did. Therefore, I was able to launch with some commitment the campaign for awareness in the catering sector. Although I was sometimes criticised by people who were ignorant of these matters, I recall that, as I went from studio to studio that morning, two individuals—a broadcaster and a sound technician—told me, "Someone in my family is affected by this. It is more widespread than you think." That is absolutely true and we have to take the matter extremely seriously.
There are too many deaths. There is more of the allergy about. We are checking into whether that is due to people's sensitivity or to the wider use of nuts, and we are funding research into the issue. It is not a matter of banning products, but of raising awareness. I have asked myself whether GM technology could remove the genes that cause the allergy, but it is more complicated than that. Technology has been used to good effect in the far east to deal with allergies to rice.
It is a matter not of looking to ban foods, but of looking for a solution through investigation. The Ministry spends just over £1 million on research. Several projects are under way, and there are bids for some new ones under our food standards and safety programme for next year. A number of groups are involved in addition to the Government and the catering industry, and there is more work to be done.
We have to revisit our expenditure on, and commitment to, the campaign, which involved contacting 200,000 establishments. Obviously, some people took the matter seriously, whereas others put the leaflets and posters in the bin and treated them as junk mail. The issue has to be revisited.
About one in 200 young children may be at risk of developing a life-threatening sensitivity to peanuts and nuts. In our population, that is a substantial number of people, so we cannot afford to be complacent. We need effective and practical labelling provisions and other measures. The Department of Health is taking the matter seriously. A few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health laid regulations, which came into effect on 7 June, designating the allergy as a medical speciality in its own right for the first time, which means that consultants can be appointed. A big contribution can be made in that area.
The catering industry is vastly complex. I have referred to the catering awareness campaign, launched in 1997. We sent out 200,000 information packs. At the annual meeting of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health later this year, we shall discuss how the campaign has gone and seek ways to promote a "Be allergy aware"

message throughout the industry. Some action is planned, and we shall be doing work with the industry and the enforcement officers at the conference in Bournemouth on getting the message across.
We shall also be meeting the anaphylaxis campaign, and the university and college caterers in July. Bearing in mind recent tragedies, we have to reinforce the message to caterers who deal specifically with young people in the further and higher education sector, and get across to them the seriousness of the issue. We also have meetings planned with representatives of large restaurant chains. With people eating out more than ever, it is in their interests to do everything that they can. We have the example of practical rules for GMO information in non-packaged foods, although the measure is not yet in force.
We have to pursue the issue of defensive labelling, which is an unsatisfactory lawyer's response. The British Retail Consortium has produced guidelines setting out good practice. We shall pursue the issue with the Institute of Grocery Distribution labelling group. We want to minimise the "may contain" tendency. Those words are not acceptable. We have to find imaginative ways to work in harmony with the industry to get the message across. It is not in the industry's interests to be seen to be lackadaisical or thought to be not taking the matter seriously.
There are moves in Brussels to amend the 25 per cent. rule for severe allergens. We have done a lot of work in this country on food intolerance, which we are sharing with our European partners. We are encouraging them to understand the seriousness of the issue. The 25 per cent. rule should go as soon as possible. There are problems with food sold loose, food sold at catering establishments and the 25 per cent. rule. We are tackling each of those systematically, in addition to our contribution to research projects.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about getting the message across. I do not want to be over-critical of broadcasters, but they have a role to play. I was interviewed recently when promoting MAFF's research food safety budget for 2000–01, which will be the first year of the Food Standards Agency budget. One of the many projects relates to food intolerance and food allergy. I was criticised by an interviewer on an important daily early-morning food-related programme, who asked why we were spending all that money on an issue that was not serious. I had to point out with care and some force that it is a serious, life-threatening issue and people die. We feel that we can take measures to make the problems avoidable.
The media can help. This is not a food faddist issue, and is not a matter of the nanny state. A serious medical condition has been identified. We do not know all the answers, which is why we are spending money on research. We are not concerned only with nut allergies, although I am dealing with peanuts in particular. There is other food intolerance involving, for example, some dairy products, to which we must attend.
I do not know why such allergies are identified today when they were not 20 or 30 years ago when I was younger. They may have been around, but not been identified. People may have died or suffered serious injury without identification of the cause. With the advantage of biotechnology, we have more knowledge today.
There is no excuse for inadequate labelling where such products are deliberately added. We must ensure that the labelling is clear. I have occasionally made purchases for people with a peanut allergy. One can search shelf after shelf of confectionery, only to find in the small print the words "May contain nuts" or "Contains nuts". Few specialist products are around, so niche markets exist in the food industry.
I freely admit that the resignation of the Commission in Brussels has caused considerable difficulties with regard to the labelling of GM additives and flavourings, GM animal feedstuff labelling and the 25 per cent. rule. Commissioners have reappointed themselves, only to say that they cannot take any major decisions because they are not really the Commission. Now that the European elections are out of the way, we shall be taking action in Brussels via the parliamentary committees to encourage them to put pressure on the Commission. This is not an issue of great moment between parties or political ideologies, and it should not have to await the appointment of the new Commission, which is some months away.
I contacted food manufacturers and retailers after the 1997 food intolerance conference to ask them to improve their quality control procedures, and some have taken action. We want to do more to encourage them to go for nut-free lines, rather than have the present uncertainty about whether lines can be cleaned of all nut traces. Supermarkets should be embarrassed to have on their bread and cake counters—particularly the bread counters—freshly-baked produce from the store which contains no nuts whatever, yet which has labels, usually in scrawly handwriting, saying "May contain nuts". That is slipshod quality control, and it is anti-consumer and anti-choice for the customer; such slipshod supermarkets should be avoided because they are not taking the issue

seriously. That is inefficient, anti-consumer, defensive labelling. I deplore that, as I have no doubt does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister is being extremely helpful and I thank him for that, but may I press him on one issue on which he touched at the beginning of his remarks? He said that he is not threatening or promising legislation, but does he intend to consult the catering industry on a code of practice and on regulations, and over what timetable?

Mr. Rooker: The short answer is yes. I shall certainly consult on a code of practice and take that forward. Whether that would lead later to regulation, I am not in a position to say. An effective code of practice which will raise awareness, so that the industry takes responsibility, may be sufficient. I can now tell the catering industry and the rest—as I could not in 1997—that we have succeeded in the practical regulation of GMOs, and the industry has gone along with that. We spent a long time consulting on it. The technology means that there is no difference between the tracing and checking of products for GMOs and other products. We shall take the issue forward to see whether a code of practice rather than guidelines would be beneficial and practical, to which we can give impetus.
I am in no way being slipshod or backsliding. I take the matter seriously and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. It is important that I am able to say to the industry, "These matters are being raised in Parliament. They are not fads of MAFF Ministers or officials who are seeking further regulation on the industry. Members of Parliament who represent their constituencies and raise issues in the public interest on the Floor of the House of Commons are raising these issues, and they want answers. At some point, I or other Ministers must come back and account for what we are doing."
In that respect, I can assure the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that I will keep him and the others who have raised the issue with me fully informed of what we are doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'clock.